■ 


Columbia  ©ntoeraitp 

intljeCttpofBrmgdrk 

THE  LIBRARIES 


Bequest  of 

Frederic  Bancroft 

1860-1945 


AN  EXAMINATION 


OF  THE 


CAUSES    WHICH    LED    TO    THE    SEPARATION 


OF  THE 


RELIGIOUS    SOCIETY 


OF 


FRIENDS 


IN   AMERICA,   IN    1827-28. 


BY 

SAMUEL   M.  JANNEY, 

AUTHOR  OP  "LIFE  OF  WILLIAM    VEXS,"  "LIFE  OF  GEORGE   FOX,"  ETC, 


PHILADELPHIA: 
T.     ELLWOOD    ZELL, 

17  &  19  SOUTH  SIXTH  STREET. 

1868. 


^It^io 


J    £  V 


if 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1859,  by 
SAMUEL   M.   JANNET, 

in  the  C«rk'8  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Eastern 

District  of  Virginia. 


6TEKE0TTPED  BY  J.  FAG  AN. 
A    - 


00 

m 


K. 


TO  THE  READER. 


It  will  be  observed  that  this  work  contains  several  references  to 
preceding  chapters  in  "The  History  of  the  Religious  Society  of 
Friends,"  of  which  it  forms  the  concluding  part.  On  issuing  it  now 
in  a  separate  volume,  the  publisher  has  not  deemed  it  necessary  to 
make  any  alterations  in  those  references. 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  CAUSES 


WHICH   LED    TO   THE 


SEPAEATION  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETY 
OF  FRIENDS  IN  AMERICA 

IN   1827-28. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  separation  that  took  place  in  the  Society  of 
Friends  in  America,  during  the  years  1827  and  '28, 
was  an  event  of  deep  and  painful  interest  to  its 
members,  and  is  still  regarded  by  many,  both  with- 
in and  without  its  pale,  as  a  subject  of  unceasing 
regret.  It  was  accompanied  by  alienation  of  feeling 
among  many  who  had  long  been  knit  together  in 
the  closest  ties  of  friendship,  and  it  diminished  the 
salutary  influence  that  the  Society  had  always  ex- 
erted, from  the  first  settlement  of  the  country,  in 
the  promotion  of  every  work  that  tended  to  the 
public  good. 

The  separation  was  preceded  by  an  exciting  con- 
troversy, in  which  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of 
the  Society  were  discussed;  both  parties  claiming 
to  hold  the  tenets  and  to  act  upon  the  principles  of 

the  early  Friends.     It  becomes  necessary,  therefore, 
l*  IV— P  (5) 


O  INTRODUCTION". 

in  tracing  the  causes  that  led  to  this  event,  to  give  a 
concise  statement  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Society  in 
the  time  of  George  Fox,  together  with  the  system 
of  church  government  he  introduced,  and  to  inquire 
what  changes  have  since  taken  place. 

The  difficulty  and  delicacy  of  this  task  may,  in 
some  measure,  be  appreciated,  by  bearing  in  mind 
that  the  Society  has  never  adopted  a  formal  creed ; 
and  that,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  points  em- 
braced in  the  advices  of  its  Yearlv  meetings,  its 
doctrines  must  be  sought  for  in  the  voluminous 
writings  of  its  members,  which,  not  being  always 
clear,  require  to  be  collated  with  each  other. 

It  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  members  of  a 
society  gathered  from  various  religious  sects,  and 
educated  under  such  diverse  influences,  would  all 
agree  in  every  point  of  doctrine. 

Accordingly,  we  find  in  their  writings  some  shades 
of  difference,  —  they  did  not  all  usee  eye  to  eye," 
neither  was  such  uniformity  of  sentiment  considered 
essential  to  religious  union ;  for  being  united  in 
Christ  through  the  bond  of  the  Spirit,  all  minor 
differences  were  deemed  unimportant,  or  regarded 
only  as  incentives  to  Christian  charity.  On  several 
occasions,  declarations  relating  to  their  doctrinal 
views  were  published  by  prominent  members  of  the 
Society,  in  order  to  refute  the  accusations  of  their 
adversaries.  These  were  generally  couched  in  Scrip- 
ture language,  in  accordance  with  the  "  frequent 
advice  of  Geo.  Fox  to  Friends,  to  keep  to  Scripture 
language,  terms,  words,  and  doctrines,  as  taught  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  in  matters  of  faith,  religion,  con- 


INTKODUCTION.  7 

troversy,  and  conversation,  and  not  to  be  imposed 
upon  and  drawn  into  unscriptural  terms,  invented 
by  men  in  their  human  wisdom."1 

From  these  declarations,  quotations  will  be  found 
m  this  treatise,  but  the  question  still  recurs,  in  what 
sense  did  the  authors  understand  those  scriptural 
phrases  ?  Did  they  accept  them  as  generally  under- 
stood by  theologians?  Or  were  they  led  by  their 
own  religious  experience  and  the  illumination  of 
divine  grace,  to  go  deeper,  and  to  find  those  Ci  mys- 
teries of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  which  are  hidden 
from  the  wise  and  prudent,  but  revealed  unto  babes. 

We  know  that  human  language,  although  admi- 
rable in  itself,  is  but  an  imperfect  medium  for  the 
conveyance  of  thought.  Words  are  signs  or  symbols 
of  ideas,  which  being  held  up  before  us  in  speech 
or  writing,  call  up  in  our  minds  the  images  or  ideas 
we  have  previously  acquired  by  education,  expe- 
rience, or  reflection.  But  the  education  and  expe- 
rience of  mankind  are  exceedingly  diverse,  ai.d 
hence  it  may  happen  that  some  words  or  phrawes 
will  not  convey  to  different  individuals  precisely  the 
same  ideas.  This  will  be  found  to  apply  more 
especially  to  certain  phrases  in  the  sacred  writings, 
which  in  the  lapse  of  centuries,  and  through  the 
teaching  of  theologians,  have  acquired  conventional 
meanings  that,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  were  not 
intended  by  the  writer.  It  is  obvious,  there  fort, 
that,  although  a  confession  of  faith  constructed  of 
Scriptural  phrases  must  necessarily  be  accepted  by 
all  who  believe  the  Scriptures,  yet  it  may  not  convey 

1  Works  of  G.  F.,  IV.  3.     Epistle  of  G.  Whitehead  and  others. 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

to  all  persons  the  same  meaning,  because  all  have 
not  received  the  same  mental  training. 

There  are,  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Friends, 
many  passages  that  explain  the  sense  in  which  they 
understood  the  Scripture  texts  they  employed,  and 
they  often  avowed  very  unpopular  doctrines,  for  in 
many  points,  both  of  doctrine  and  practice,  they 
were  far  in  advance  of  the  age  in  which  they  lived. 

It  is  well  known  that  at  the  rise  of  the  Society, 
and  for  a  long  time  afterwards,  they  were  violently 
assailed  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  and  charged 
with  denying  some  of  the  doctrines  deemed  funda- 
mental by  the  Orthodox  churches.  William  Penn, 
George  Whitehead,  and  other  Friends,  were  engaged 
in  public  disputes  with  Dissenting  ministers,  among 
whom  were  Vincent,  Ives,  Hicks,  and  Baxter.  The 
Friends  were  doubtless  calumniated  and  charged 
with  false  doctrines  which  they  did  not  hold ;  but 
there  can  be  no  question  that  in  many  particulars 
they  differed  from  most  other  Dissenters,  as  well  as 
from  the  Anglican  Church  and  the  Roman  Catholics. 

In  order  to  show  precisely  where  they  stood,  and 
what  they  believed,  it  is  deemed  appropriate  to  com- 
pare the  doctrines  of  Friends  with  the  popular  the- 
ology of  that  day,  first  showing  wherein  they  differed 
from  others,  and  then  demonstrating  from  their 
writings  and  from  the  Scriptures,  that  they  held  the 
doctrines  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  This 
course  is  deemed  the  more  necessary,  inasmuch  as 
attempts  have  been  made,  by  some  claiming  to  be 
their  successors,  to  show  that  they  did  not  differ  in 
essentials  from  the  Trinitarian  churches,  and  copious 


INTRODUCTION".  9 

extracts  from  Friends'  writings  have  been  published, 
which  being  entirely  one-sided,  are  calculated  to 
mislead  the  public.  It  may  be  said  of  their  writ- 
ings, as  of  all  other  voluminous  works,  that  passages 
may  be  selected  which,  separated  from  the  context, 
do  not  express  the  author's  meaning.  It  is  the  duty 
and  pleasure  of  a  candid  inquirer  to  collate  such 
passages  as  appear  to  be  ambiguous,  with  others 
that  are  more  clear,  and  thus  by  patient  and  impar- 
tial investigation  endeavor  to  arrive  at  the  truth. 

While  instituting  a  comparison  between  the  doc- 
trines held  by  Protestants  generally,  and  those 
maintained  by  the  early  Friends,  it  will  be  observed 
that  only  those  doctrines  which  have  been  subjects 
of  controversy  among  Friends  in  America  are  con- 
sidered as  being  within  the  scope  of  this  inquiry. 

P2 


10  VIEWS  OF   THE   EARLY   FRIENDS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

VIEWS  OF  THE  EARLY  FRIENDS  COMPARED  WITH 
THE  POPULAR  THEOLOGY  ON  IMMEDIATE  REVE- 
LATION. 

§  1.  The  indwelling  presence  of  the  Divine  Word, 
or  Spirit  of  Christ,  in  the  souls  of  men,  is  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  Society  of  Friends.  uThe 
principle  of  the  Quakers,"  wrote  George  Fox  to  the 
king,  "  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  who  died  for  us,  and 
is  risen  for  our  justification;  by  which  we  know  we 
are  his.  He  dwelleth  in  us  by  his  Spirit,  and  by 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  we  are  led  out  of  unrighteous- 
ness and  ungodliness." * 

§  2.  "Now  observe,"  says  Pennington,  in  his  trea 
tise  addressed  to  the  Royal  Society,  "  the  difference 
between  the  religion  that  God  hath  taught  us,  and 
led  us  into,  and  the  religions  of  all  men  upon  the 
earth  besides.  Our  religion  stands  wholly  out  of 
that,  which  all  their  religion  stands  in.  Their  reli- 
gion stands  in  the  comprehension,  in  a  belief  of  a 
literal  relation  or  description.  Our  religion  stands 
in  a  principle  which  changeth  the  mind,  wherein  the 
spirit  of  life  appeareth  to,  and  witnesseth  in  the 
conscience  to  and  concerning  the  things  of  the  king- 
dom ;  where  we  hear  the  voice,  and  see  the  express 
image  of  the  invisible  one,  and  know  things  not 
from  an  outward  relation,  but  from  their  inward 

1  Works  of  G.  F.,  Vol.  II.  p.  163. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EAELY   FRIENDS.  11 

nature,  virtue  and  power.  Yea,  here,  we  must  pro- 
fess, we  so  know  things  that  we  are  fully  satisfied 
about  them,  and  could  not  doubt  concerning  them, 
though  there  never  had  been  word  or  letter  written 
of  them ;  though  indeed  it  is  also  a  great  comfort 
and  sweet  refreshment  to  us,  to  read  that  testified 
of  outwardly,  which,  through  the  tender  mercy  of 
our  God,  we  enjoy  inwardly.  And  in  this  our  whole 
religion  consists  ;  to  wit,  in  the  silence  and  death  of 
the  flesh,  and  in  the  quickening  and  flowing  life  of 
the  spirit.  For  he  who  is  of  the  new  birth,  of  the 
new  creation,  of  the  second  Adam,  (the  Lord  from 
heaven,)  is  as  really  alive  to  God,  and  as  really  lives 
to  him  in  his  spirit,  as  ever  he  was  really  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,  in  the  time  of  his  alienation  and 
estrangement  from  God."1 

This  passage  was  published  in  1668,  a  few  years 
subsequent  to  the  restoration  of  the  Stuarts ;  when 
religion  in  England  was  at  a  low  ebb,  the  established 
Church  resting  in  a  state  of  lifeless  formality,  and 
the  Puritan  sects,  in  their  practice,  having  sunk  far 
below  their  profession.  There  were,  doubtless, 
throughout  Europe,  both  among  the  Catholics  and 
Protestants,  many  devout  souls  who  had  seen  beyond 
the  rituals  of  their  church,  and  attained  to  that 
"life  which  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God;"  neverthe- 
less the  language  of  Pennington  was  applicable  to 
Christian  professors  in  general;  their  religion  "stood 
in  the  comprehension," — in  an  effort  of  the  mind 
to  understand  Scriptural   truth,  without  having  it 

-  _|  LI 

1  Works  of  I.  P.,  II.  59. 


12  VIEWS    OF    THE    EAELY    FKIENDS. 

verified  in  their  own  experience,  through  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

§  3.  Robert  Barclay  states  the  doctrine  of  imme- 
diate revelation  in  this  proposition.  "  Seeing  no 
man  knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to 
whom  the  Son  revealeth  him ;  Matt.  xi.  27.  And 
seeing  the  revelation  of  the  Son  is  in  and  by  the 
Spirit,  therefore  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is 
that  alone  by  which  the  true  knowledge  of  God 
hath  been,  is,  and  can  be  only  revealed."  "It  is 
very  probable,"  he  says,  "that  many  carnal  and 
natural  Christians  will  oppose  this  proposition,  who 
being  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  movings  and 
actings  of  God's  spirit  upon  their  hearts,  judge  the 
same  nothing  necessary ;  and  some  are  apt  to  flout 
at  it  as  ridiculous.  Yea,  to  that  height  are  the  gen- 
erality of  Christians  apostatized  and  degenerated, 
that,  though  there  be  not  anything  more  plainly 
asserted,  more  seriously  recommended,  nor  more 
certainly  attested  to  in  all  the  writings  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  yet  nothing  is  less  minded  and  more 
rejected  by  all  sorts  of  Christians,  than  immediate 
and  divine  revelation ;  insomuch  that  once  to  lay 
claim  to  it,  is  a  matter  of  reproach.  "Whereas  of 
old  none  were  ever  judged  Christians,  but  such  as 
had  the  Spirit  of  Christ;  Rom.  viii.  9.  But  now 
many  do  boldly  call  themselves  Christians,  wTho 
make  no  difficulty  of  confessing,  they  are  without 
it ;  and  laugh  at  such  as  say  they  have  it.  Of  old 
they  were  accounted  the  sons  of  God,  who  were  led 
by  the  Spirit  of  God;  ibid.,  verse  14;  but  now,  many 
aver  themselves   sons  of  God,  who  know  nothing 


VIEWS    OF    THE   EARLY   FRIENDS.  13 

of  this  leader:  and  he  that  affirms  himself  so  led,  is 
by  the  pretended  orthodox  of  this  age,  presently 
proclaimed  a  heretic. 

"For  the  better  understanding  of  this  proposition, 
we  do  distinguish  betwixt  the  certain  knowledge  of 
God,  and  the  uncertain ;  betwixt  the  spiritual  knowl- 
edge, and  the  literal ;  the  saving  heart-knowledge, 
and  soaring  airy  head-knowledge.  The  last  we  con- 
fess may  be  divers  ways  obtained ;  but  the  first  by 
no  other  way  than  the  inward  immediate  manifesta- 
tion and  revelation  of  God's  Spirit,  shining  in  and 
upon  the  heart,  enlightening  and  opening  the  under- 
standing." ■ 

§  4.  In  confirmation  of  this  doctrine,  Barclay 
quotes  from  the  works  of  Augustine,  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  and  others  of  the  early  Christian  writers, 
and  also  from  Luther  and  Melancthon,  showing  that 
the  saving  knowledge  of  God  can  only  be  derived 
from  the  teachings  of  his  own  spirit.  He  might 
have  quoted  similar  doctrines  from  the  early  re- 
formers in  England, — the  fathers  of  the  Anglican 
Church,  — as  well  as  from  Baxter,  Bunyan  and  others 
then  living,  who  were  the  opposers  of  Friends. 

The  difference  between  the  Friends  and  most 
others,  in  relation  to  this  doctrine,  may  be  briefly 
stated  as  follows : 

§  5.  In  the  Church  of  England,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Spirit's  influence  on  the  heart  was  recognized 
la  her  Liturgy  and  taught  in  her  Homilies ;  but  in 
the   ministrations  of   her  priesthood  it  was  little 

1  Barclay's  Apology,  Prop.  2,  \  1. 


1-i  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

regarded,  if  not  wholly  ignored;  while  among  the 
Puritan  ministers,  who  were  generally  Calvinists, 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  supposed  to  be  confined 
to  the  elect,  for  whom  alone,  they  asserted,  Christ 
died.  It  was  generally  taught  by  both  classes,  that 
immediate  revelation  had  cease<J,  aud  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  an  enlightener  and  sanctifier  was  only  wit- 
nessed through  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace,  such 
as  reading  the  Scriptures,  partaking  of  the  ordi- 
nances, and  attending  on  the  services  of  religion. 
One  of  the  opponents  of  Friends,  a  vicar  in  the 
established  church,  wrote  as  follows :  "  God  has 
committed  his  will  now  wholly  to  writing,  so  that 
former  ways  of  God's  revealing  his  will,  as  by  im- 
mediate revelation,  are  now  ceased,  and  the  Scrip- 
ture is  a  fixed  canon  or  rule,  —  and  our  sole  and 
entire  rule  of  faith  and  manners,  in  all  that  is  neces- 
sary to  our  salvntion."1 

§  G.  In  the  Society  of  Friends,  "the  Universal 
and  Saving  Light  of  Christ"  was  held  forth  con- 
tinually as  their  fundamental  principle,  —  the  corner- 
stone of  their  religion.  Xot  only  to  those  who  have 
the  Scriptures,  or  the  historical  knowledge  of  Christ's 
advent,  does  his  spirit  come ;  but  even  to  the  hea- 
then who  are  sitting  in  darkness,  his  light  appears. 
He  comes  as  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  "  to  convince  the 
world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judg- 
ment." To  the  wicked,  he  appears  as  a  reprover 
for  sin,  "a  spirit  of  judgment,  and  a  spirit  of  burn- 
ing;" but  to  the  humble,  obedient  soul,  as  a  com- 
forter in  righteousness. 

1  Patrick  Smith,  quoted  in  Besse's  Defence  of  Quakerism,  p.  36. 


VIEWS    OF   THE   EARLY    FRIENDS.  15 

§  7.  In  the  brief  account  we  have,  in  Genesis,  of 
the  primogenitors  of  our  race,  it  appears  that  not 
only  while  they  were  in  a  state  of  innocence  did 
the  Lord  hold  converse  with  them,  but  after  their 
transgression  they  heard  his  voice,  saying,  "  Adam, 
where  art  thou?"  With  Cain  also  he  conversed, 
both  before  and  after  the  murder  of  his  brother :  in 
the  first  instance,  showing  him  that  his  acceptance 
depended  upon  well-doing ;  in  the  second  condemn- 
in  o;  him  for  the  crime  he  had  committed.  In  these 
cases  the  Eternal  Word  or  Spirit  of  Christ  spoke 
immediately  to  the  human  soul,  —  no  outward  instru- 
ment was  employed ;  and  such  is  still  the  ordinary 
process  by  which  the  divine  will  is  made  known  to 
man,  —  it  is  therefore  called  immediate  revelation. 
It  is  true,  that  in  the  ordering  of  Divine  Providence, 
instrumental  means  are  often  employed,  such  as  the 
Scriptures  of  truth,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and 
the  vicissitudes  of  life ;  but  in  all  cases,  the  good 
effected  is  from  the  immediate  operation  of  divine 
grace  upon  the  heart  or  conscience. 

In  fact,  there  can  be  no  saving  knowledge  of 
Christ,  but  from  immediate  revelation.  "No  man 
can  come  to  me,"  said  Jesus,  "except  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  me  draw  him."  ■  This  drawing  of 
the  Father  is  the  operation  of  his  spirit,  for  "the 
manifestation  of  the  spirit  is  given  to  every  man  to 
profit  withal."2  As  the  power  and  virtue  of  the 
outward  sun  can  only  be  known  through  his  light, 
and  as  no  description  of  light  can  give  an  idea  of  it 
without  the  sense  of  vision,  so  the  Author  of  all 

1  John  vi.  44.  a  1  Cor.  xii.  7. 


16  VIEWS    OF   THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

Good — the  sun  of  the  spiritual  world — can  only 
be  known  through  the  influence  of  his  light,  or 
spirit,  immediately  revealed  to  our  spiritual  per- 
ception. 

§  8.  In  the  writings  of  Friends  there  is  a  clear 
distinction  observed  between  the  Divine  li^ht  which 
is  the  medium,  and  the  conscience  which  is  the 
organ,  of  spiritual  perception.  This  faculty  of  the 
soul  may  be  clouded  by  prejudice,  benumbed  by 
disobedience,  and  "even  seared  as  with  a  hot  iron," 
by  long-continued  transgression  ;  but  the  light  itself, 
though  obscured,  or  lost  to  our  vision,  remains  ever 
the  same,  for  the  Divine  nature  is  unchangeable. 
"If  thine  eye  be  single,  thy  whole  body  shall  be 
full  of  light ;  but  if  thine  eye  be  evil  [or  diseased], 
thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  darkness." 

William  Penn,  in  treating  of  this  subject,  adopts 
the  language  of  Justin  Martyr,  viz. :  "  God  hath  built 
to  himself  a  natural  temple  in  the  consciences  of  men 
as  the  place  wherein  he  would  be  worshipped;  and 
it  is  there  men  ought  to  look  for  his  appearance  and 
reverence  and  worship  him."  He  quotes  also  the  fol- 
lowing passage  from  Clemens  Alexandrinus:  "It  is  the 
voice  of  Truth,  that  light  will  shine  out  of  darkness. 
Therefore  doth  it  shine  in  the  hidden  part  of  man- 
kind, that  is,  in  the  heart ;  and  the  rays  of  knowl- 
edge break  forth  making  manifest  and  shining  upon 
the  inward  man,  which  is  hidden;  —  Christ's  inti- 
mates and  co-heirs  are  the  disciples  of  the  Light."1 

Robert  Barclay,  in  his  treatise  on  Universal  Love, 
relates,  on  the  testimony  of  Francis  Xavier,  called 

1  Penn's  Select  Works,  p.  245. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  17 

by  the  Catholics  the  Apostle  of  the  Indies,  that  the 
Japanese,  whom  the  Jesuits  endeavored  to  proselyte, 
made  objections  to  the  Catholic  doctrines,  saving 
that  God  seemed  not  to  be  merciful  and  just  in  con- 
demning to  eternal  punishment  all  the  Japanese 
who  died  before  the  coming  of  the  missionaries. 
To  remove  this  objection  and  gain  converts,  the 
Jesuits  assured  them  that  all  men  have  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  divine  laws  from  nature,  and  from  God 
the  Author  of  nature,  —  this  law  was  implanted  in 
man's  heart  before   any  human  laws  were    made. 

Thus  says  Barclay,  "  To  satisfy  these  Japanese, 
that  their  forefathers  were  not  all  necessarily  damned, 
and  to  show  that  the  universal  love  of  God  reached 
unto  them  to  put  them  in  a  capacity  of  salvation, 
this  cunning  Jesuit  could  not  find  any  other  way 
than  by  asserting  this  principle,"1  —  the  Light  and 
Life  of  God  in  the  soul. 

George  F«>x  says  in  his  Journal:  "I  was  sent  to 
turn  people  from  darkness  to  the  light,  that  they 
might  receive  Christ  Jesus,  for  to  as  many  as  should 
receive  him  in  his  light,  I  saw  that  he  would  give 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  which  I  had 
obtained  by  receiving  Christ  And  I  was  to  direct 
people  to  the  spirit  that  gave  forth  the  Scriptures  by 
which  they  might  be  led  into  all  truth,  and  so  up  to 
Christ  and  God  as  they  had  been  who  gave  them 
forth."2 

Such  was  the  truly  liberal  doctrine  held  forth  by 
the  first  preachers  and  writers  in  the   Society  of 

1  Barclay's  Works,  p.  701. 

2  G.  F's.  Journal.     London  ed.  1G94. 
2*  Q 


18  VIEWS  OF    THE    EARLY   FRIENDS. 

Friends,  a  doctrine  that  was  then  assailed  on  every 
hand  by  the  pulpit  and  the  press  —  by  Churchmen 
and  Dissenters. 

This  doctrine,  when  held  in  sincerity  by  enlight- 
ened minds,  necessarily  leads  to  toleration  and  reli- 
gious liberty ;  for  if  we  believe  that  those  who  have 
not  so  much  as  heard  of  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the 
flesh,  may  nevertheless  be  saved  by  obedience  to  the 
Light  or  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  conclusion  logically 
follows,  that  the  same  divine  power  will  save  those 
professed  followers  of  Christ  who  obey  his  spiritual 
law,  although,  in  our  apprehension,  they  may  err  in 
judgment  concerning  some  important  points  of 
doctrine. 

Accordingly  we  find  that  religious  liberty  was 
cherished  by  the  early  Friends,  and  consistently 
carried  out  in  their  practice  when  they  attained  to 
power  in  some  of  the  American  colonies. 


CHAPTER   II. 


VIEWS  OF  THE  EARLY  FRIENDS  COMPARED  WITH 
THE  POPULAR  THEOLOGY  OX  THE  HOLY  SCRIP- 
TURES. 

§  1.  The  first  imprisonment  of  George  Fox  re- 
sulted from  his  controverting  the  views  generally 
entertained  concerning  the  Seriptures.  In  the  year 
1G40,  he  went  into  the  parish  house  of  worship  at 
Nottingham,  where  he  heard  the  priest  take  for  his 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  19 

text  these  words  of  Peter:  ""We  have  also  a  more 
sure  word  of  prophecy,  whereunto  ye  do  well  that 
ye  take  heed,  as  unto  a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark 
place  until  the  day  dawn  and  the  day-star  arise 
in  your  hearts."  This,  he  told  the  people,  was  the 
Scriptures,  by  which  they  were  to  try  all  doctrines, 
religions,  and  opinions. 

<kXow  the  Lord's  power,"  writes  George  Fox, 
"was  so  mighty  upon  me  and  so  strong  in  me,  that 
I  could  not  hold,  but  was  made  to  cry  out,  'Oh!  no, 
it  is  not  the  Scriptures;'  and  told  them  what  it  was, 
namely,  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which  the  holy  men  of 
God  gave  forth  the  Scriptures,  whereby  opinions, 
religions,  and  judgments  were  to  be  tried;  for  it 
led  into  all  truth,  and  so  gave  the  knowledge  of  all 
truth.  For  the  Jews  had  the  Scriptures,  yet  resisted 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  rejected  Christ,  the  bright 
morning-star, and  persecuted  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
and  took  upon  them  to  try  their  doctrines  by  the 
Scriptures,  but  erred  in  judgment  and  did  not  try 
them  aright,  becaU8e  they  tried  them  without  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

The  early  Friends  avowed  their  belief  in  the  au- 
thenticity  and  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
but  they  declined  to  give  them  the  usual  appella- 
tion,—  the  Word  of  God, — because  this  title  is,  by 
the  sacred  writers,  appropriated  to  Christ  the  Eter- 
nal Word,  that  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and 
was  God. 

§  2.  The  views  expressed  by  Barclay  in  the  third 
proposition  of  his  Apology,  were  tinse  generally 
held  by  the  Society,  viz : — 


20  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

"From  these  revelations  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to 
the  saints  have  proceeded  the  Scriptures  of  Truth, 
which  contain  :  I.  A  faithful  historical  account  of 
the  actings  of  God's  people  in  divers  ages ;  with 
many  singular  and  remarkable  providences  attend- 
ing them.  II.  A  prophetical  account  of  several 
things,  whereof  some  are  already  past,  and  some  yet 
to  come.  III.  A  full  and  ample  account  of  all  the 
chief  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  held  forth 
in  divers  precious  declarations,  exhortations,  and 
sentences,  which  hy  the  moving  of  God's  Spirit, 
were  at  several  times  and  upon  sundry  occasions 
written  unto  some  churches  and  their  pastors. 
Nevertheless  because  they  are  only  a  declaration  of 
the  fountain,  and  not  the  fountain  itself,  therefore 
tlicy  are  not  to  be  esteemed  the  principal  ground  of 
all  truth  and  knowledge,  nor  yet  the  adequate,  pri- 
mary rule  of  faith  and  manners.  Yet  because  they 
give  a  true  and  faithful  testimony  of  the  first  foun- 
dation, they  are  and  may  be  esteemed  a  secondary 
rule,  subordinate  to  the  Spirit  from  which  they  have 
all  their  excellency  and  certainty.  For  as  by  the 
inward  testimony  of  the  Spirit  we  do  alone  truly 
know  them,  so  they  testily,  that  the  Spirit  is  that 
guide  by  which  the  saints  are  led  into  all  truth; 
therefore,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the  Spirit  is 
the  first  and  principal  leader."1  *  *  *  *  "  The  prin- 
cipal rule  of  Christians  under  the  gospel  is  not  an 
outward  letter,  nor  law  outwardly  written  and  de- 
livered, hut  an  inward  spiritual  law  ingraven  in  the 
heart,  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life,  the  word  that  is 
nisrh  in  the  heart  and  in  the  mouth;  but  the  letter 


1  John  xvi.  13 ;  Rom.  vii.  14. 


VIEWS    OF   THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  21 

of  the  Scripture  is  outward,  of  itself  a  dead  thing, 
a  mere  declaration  of  good  things  but  not  the  things 
themselves:  therefore  it  nor  is,  nor  can  be,  the  chief 
or  principal  rule  of  Christians." 

He  says  moreover  of  the  Scriptures :  "  The  propo- 
sition itself  declares  how  much  I  esteem  them  ; 
and  provided  that  to  the  Spirit  (from  which  they 
came)  be  but  granted  that  place  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves give  it;  I  do  freely  concede  to  the  Scriptures 
the  second  place,  even  whatsoever  they  say  of  them- 
selves, which  the  apostle  Paul  chiefly  mentions  in 
two  places.  Bom.  xv.  4  :  'Whatsoever  things  were 
written  aforetime,  were  written  for  our  learning, 
that  we  through  patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scrip- 
tures might  have  hope.'  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  17:  'The 
Holy  Scriptures  are  able  to  make  wise  unto  salva- 
tion, through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.'  *  *  *  * 
'All  Scripture  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  is  pro- 
fitable for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  every 
good  work.'"  *  *  *  *  " Moreover  because  they  are 
commonly  acknowledged  by  all  to  have  been  writ- 
ten by  the  dictates  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  the 
errors  which  may  be  supposed  by  the  injury  of  time 
to  have  slipped  in,  are  not  such,  but  that  there  is  a 
sufficient  clear  testimony  left  to  all  the  essentials  of 
the  Christian  faith,  we  do  look  upon  them  as  the 
only  fit  outward  judge  of  controversy  among  Chris- 
tians, and  that  whatsoever  doctrine  is  contrary  unto 
their  testimony  may  therefore  justly  be  rejected  as 
false."1 

— -  - 

1  Apology,  Prop.  3.  H  v.  and  vi. 


22  VIEWS   OF   THE   EARLY   FRIENDS 


CHAPTER   III. 

VIEWS  OF  THE  EARLY  FRIEXDS  COMPARED  WITH 
THE  POPULAR  THEOLOGY  ON  THE  ORIGINAL  AND 
PRESENT  STATE  OF  MAN. 

§  1.  The  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  as  generally 
held,  is  thus  defined  by  one  of  its  advocates:1 
"  Original  sin  was  the  rebellion  of  the  first  man, 
Adam,  against  his  Creator,  which  was  a  sin  of  uni- 
versal efficacy,  which  derives  a  guilt  and  stain  to 
mankind  in  all  a^cs  of  the  world.  The  account  the 
Scripture  gives  of  it,  is  grounded  on  the  relation 
which  all  men  have  to  Adam  as  their  natural  and 
moral  principal  or  head."  *  *  *  *  "  As  the  whole 
race  of  mankind  was  virtually  in  Adams  loins,  so  it 
was  presumed  to  give  virtual  consent  to  what  he 
did  ;  when  he  broke,  all  suffered  shipwreck  that 
were  contained  in  him  as  their  natural  original." 
*  *  *  *  "In  the  first  treaty  between  God  and  man, 
Adam  was  considered  not  as  a  single  person,  but  as 
the  representative  of  a  nation  and  contracted  for  all 
his  descendants  by  ordinary  generation.  Ilis  person 
was  the  fountain  of  theirs,  and  his  will  the  representa- 
tive of  theirs.  From  hence  his  vast  progeny  became  a 
part)/  in  the  covenant,  and  had  a  title  to  the  benefits 
contained  in  it  upon  his  obedience,  and  was  liable 
to  the  curse  upon  his  violation  of  it."2 

§  2.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  which 

1  Cruden's  Concordance.  a  Ibid. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  23 

Robert  Barclay  iu  his  Apology  calls  an  "  invented 
and  unscriptural  barbarism."1 

The  notion  that  all  men  were  virtually  in  Adan 
and  gave  their  consent  to  what  he  did,  is  an  ab- 
surdity that  must  be  obvious  to  the  lowest  capacity*. 
No  sane  person  will  pretend  to  assert,  that  a  man  is 
morally  responsible  for  the  guilty  transactions  of  his 
father,  his  grandfather,  or  any  of  his  ancestors.  As  to 
the  first  treaty  between  man  and  his  Maker,  in  which 
Adam  contracted  for  all  his  descendants,  it  is  a  fiction 
which  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture  or  reason. 

The  imputation  of  sin  to  infants  is  denied  and 
disproved  by  Barclay,  in  the  following  language : 
"The  Apostle  saith  plainly,  Rom.  iv.  15,  'Where  no 
law  is  there  is  no  transgression.'  And  again,  v.  13, 
'But  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law,' 
than  which  testimonies  there  is  nothing  more  posi- 
tive ;  since  to  infants  there  is  no  law,  seeing  as  such 
they  are  utterly  incapable  of  it;  the  law  cannot  reach 
any  but  such  as  have  in  some  measure  less  or  more  the 
exercise  of  their  understanding  which  infants  have 
not."  *  *  *  *  "  Secondly,  What  can  be  more  posi- 
tive than  that  of  Ezek.  xviii.  20,  'The  soul  that  sin- 
neth  it  shall  die :  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  father's 
iniquity'  ?  For  the  prophet  here  first  showeth  what 
is  the  cause  of  man's  eternal  death,  which  he  saith 
is  his  sinning,  and  then,  as  if  he  proposed  expressly 
to  shut  out  such  an  opinion,  he  assures  us,  '  The  son 
shall  not  bear  the  father's  iniquity.'  From  which  I 
thus  argue  :     If  the  son  bear  not  the  iniquity  of  his 

*  *■  i  ■  i  ■  ■ 

1  Barclay's  Apology,  Phila.  ed.  1789,  p.  108. 


24  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

father,  or  of  his  immediate  parents,  far  less  shall  he 
hear  the  iniquity  of  Adam."  ' 

§  3.  It  must  not  be  inferred,  however,  that  Bar- 
clay attributed  no  evil  consequences  to  mankind 
from  the  sin  of  Adam.  "  Through  him,"  he  says, 
"  there  is  a  seed  of  sin  propagated  to  all  men,  which 
in  its  own  nature  is  sinful  and  inclines  men  to 
iniquity;  yet  it  will  not  follow  from  thence,  that 
infants,  who  join  not  with  this  seed,  are  guilty." 
Again  he  writes :  "  All  Adam's  posterity,  or  man- 
kind, both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  as  to  the  first  Adam 
or  earthly  man,  is  fallen,  degenerated  and  dead ; 
deprived  of  the  sensation  or  feeling  of  this  inward 
testimony  or  seed  of  God,  and  is  subject  unto  the 
power,  nature  and  seed  of  the  serpent  which  he 
sowcth  in  men's  hearts,  while  they  abide  in  this 
natural  and  corrupted  state:  from  whence  it  comes 
that  not  only  their  works  and  deeds,  but  all  their 
imaginations  are  evil  perpetually  in  the  sight  of  God 
as  proceeding  from  this  depraved  and  wicked  seed. 
Man  therefore,  as  he  is  in  this  state,  can  know  noth- 
ing aright ;  yea,  his  thoughts  and  conceptions  con- 
cerning God  and  things  spiritual,  until  he  be  dis- 
joined from  this  evil  seed  and  united  to  the  Divine 
Light,  are  unprofitable  both  to  himself  and  others."2 

Some  of  the  writers  among  the  early  Friends  refer 
to  the  fall  of  Adam  in  such  language  as  would  lead 
us  to  infer  that  in  their  opinion  mankind  have  de- 
rived some  taint  or  propensity  to  sin  from  their  pro- 
genitors.    Thus  George  Fox  writes,  in  relation  to 

1  Apology,  Prop.  IV.,  g  4.  a  Apology,  Prop.  IV. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  25 

Adam  and  Eve,  "  Thinking  to  be  made  wise,  they 
became  fools,  which  brought  the  rod  upon  the  back 
of  them,  which  also  comes  upon  all  their  posterity 
in  the  fall."  » 

And  Isaac  Pennington  says:  "The  wound  of  man 
is  deep  by  the  fall :  he  hath  really  lost  God,  he  is 
shut  out  of  his  commonwealth ;  yea,  in  that  estate 
he  is  altogether  without  hope  (for  the  hope  springs 
from  God's  visitation  of  him  with  his  light,  and 
from  the  living  promise.) " 2 

These  expressions,  and  many  others  of  a  similar 
character,  will  however  admit  of  another  construc- 
tion;  they  may  have  been  applied  to  the  general 
corruption  of  mankind  resulting  from  actual  trans- 
gression, for  all  who  have  lost  their  innocence 
through  disobedience  to  the  divine  law,  are  in  a 
fallen  state;  and  even  those  who  are  least  defiled 
must  be  born  again  "by  the  incorruptible  seed  and 
word  of  God,"  before  they  can  enter  the  kingdom 
of  heaven. 

4.  In  a  work  published  in  1GT8,  called  the  "Xew 
England  Fire-brand  Quenched,"  written  by  G.  Fox 
and  John  Burnyeat,  we  find  the  following  question 
and  answer  addressed  to  Roger  AVilliams.  "  Thou 
sayest  these  rotten  and  crooked  dispositions  in 
every  child  bring  forth  wild  asses  fruit  in  youth. 
Wherein  did  Jeremiah  and  John  Baptist  or  such 
as  were  clean  and  sanctified  in  the  womb  bring  forth 
such  fruits  as  thou  speakest  of?"  *  *  *  *  '-AH 
these  Scriptures  do  not  prove  that  Jeremiah  and 

1  G.  Fox,  Doctrinals,  723.     Work's  Am.  ed.,  VI.  9. 
a  Pennington's  Works,  I.  339. 
IV— 3 


26  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

John,  that  were  sanctified  in  the  womb,  and  the 
children  that  Paul  speaketh  of  (Cor.  vii.,  that  he 
said  were  hohj),  that  they  were  conceived  in  sin  and 
brought  forth  in  iniquity,  because  David  said,  he 
was.'" 

§  5.  The  early  experience  of  Fox,  Howgill,  Pen- 
nington, and  Burrough  were  very  remarkable,  and 
seem  to  have  been  related  in  great  simplicity,  with- 
out reference  to  popular  theology.  G.  Fox  writes 
in  his  Journal:  "When  I  came  to  eleven  years  of 
age,  I  knew  pureness  and  righteousness  ;  for  while  I 
ivas  a  child  I  was  taught  how  to  walk  so  as  to  keep 
pure.  The  Lord  taught  me  to  be  faithful  in  all 
things,  and  to  act  faithfully  two  ways,  viz.,  inwardly 
to  God,  and  outwardly  to  man ;  and  to  keep  to  yea 
and  nay  in  all  things." 

And  William  Penn  writes  of  Fox,  that  "  from  a 
child  he  appeared  of  another  frame  of  mind  than 
the  rest  of  his  brethren ;  being  more  religious,  in- 
ward, still,  solid  and  observing  beyond  his  years."2 

Francis  Howgill,  who  died  a  martyr  in  Appleby 

jail,  said  just  before  his  death:  "I  have  sought  the 

way  of  the  Lord  from  a  child,  and  lived  innocently 

as  among  men ;  and  if  any  inquire  after  my  latter 

end,  let  them  know  that  I  die  in  the  faith  that  I 

lived  in  and  suffered  for." 

Isaac  Penniii2;tou,  in  his  "Brief  Account  of  his 
9 
Soul's  Travel"  says:  "  My  heart  from  my  childhood 

was  pointed  towards  the  Lord,  whom  I  feared  and 

longed  after  from  my  tender  years,  wherein  I  felt 

1  Part  II.,  p.  136.        2  Preface  to  Journal  of  G.  F.,  p.  29. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  27 

that  I  could  not  be  satisfied  with  (nor  indeed  seek 
after)  the  things  of  this  perishing  world,  which 
naturally  pass  away ;  but  I  desired  the  true  sense  of, 
and  unity  with,  that  which  abideth  forever.  There 
was  somewhat  indeed  then  still  within  me  (even  the 
reed  of  eternity)  which  leavened  and  balanced  my 
spirit  almost  continually;  but  I  knew  it  not  dis- 
tinctly, so  as  to  turn  to  it  and  give  up  to  it,  entirely 
and  understandinffly."  ■ 

William  Penn,  after  referring  to  the  deep  religious 
exercises  of  Isaac  Pennington,  thus  continues:  "Eor 
did  this  sorrow  flow  from  a  sense  of  former  vice,  for 
he  was  virtuous  from  his  childhood,  but  with  holy 
Habakkuk  from  the  dread  he  had  of  the  majesty  of 
God,  and  his  desire  to  find  a  resting-place  in  the 
great  day  of  trouble."2 

Edward  Burrough,  who  died  in  Newgate  prison, 
a  martyr  for  the  testimony  of  truth,  in  the  28th 
year  of  his  age,  was  a  remarkable  example  of  early 
piety.  It  is  said  in  the  notice  of  him,  in  "Piety  Pro- 
moted," that  he  "was  in  his  childhood  ripe  in  knowl- 
edge and  did  far  excel  many  of  his  years.  Gray 
hairs  were  upon  him  when  but  a  youth,  and  he  was 
inclined  to  the  best  things  and  the  nearest  way  of 
worship,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  accompanying 
the  best  men."  In  his  last  sickness,  "he  was  in 
prayer  often,  both  day  and  night,  saying  at  one  time, 
'I  have  had  a  testimony  of  the  Lord's  love  to  me 
from  my  youth,  and  my  heart  hath  been  given  up  to 
do  his  will.     I  have  preached  the  gospel  freely  in 


1  Works  of  I.  P.,  II.  49.  2  Works  of  I.  P.,  Vol.  I. 


28  VIEWS    OF    THE   EARLY    FRIENDS. 

this  city,  and  have  often  given  up  my  life  for  the 
gospel's  sake.  Lord,  rip  open  my  heart  anc1  see 
if  it  be  not  right  before  thee.'  Another  time  he 
said,  'There  lies  no  iniquity  at  my  door,  but  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  is  with  me,  and  his  life,  1  feel, 
justifies  me.'  Afterwards  he  said  to  the  Lord, 
1  Thou  hast  loved  me  when  I  was  in  the  womb,  and 
I  have  loved  thee  from  my  -cradle  and  from  my  youth 
unto  this  day,  and  have  served  thee  faithfully  in  my 
generation.'  "s 

§  6.  These  passages,  selected  from  works  that  have 
always  been  considered  standards  in  the  Society, 
show  that  the  early  Friends  did  not  believe  in  the 
inherent  depravity  of  man.  They  were  not  troubled 
by  the  dogmas  of  theology,  and  when  they  came  to 
die  they  spoke  out  freely  the  earnest  convictions  of 
their  souls.  They  knew  and  acknowledged,  that 
the  natural  propensities  of  man,  if  not  controlled  by 
divine  grace,  will  lead  to  sin;  but  sin  cannot  be  in- 
herent, for  it  is  "  the  transgression  of  the  law."  The 
divine  master  said  of  the  Jews,  "If  I  had  not  come 
And  spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin."  So  it 
is  now;  we  are  not  sinners  by  birth,  but  become  so 
when  we  disobey  his  law  written  in  our  hearts. 

To  the  unprejudiced  mind  that  confides  in  the 
testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,  there  can  be  no  hesita- 
tion in  believing  that  infants  are  in  a  state  of  inno- 
cence, for  "Of  such,"  he  said,  "is  the  kingdom  of 
God;"  and  "in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  be- 
hold the  face  of  my  Father." 


1  Piety*  Promoted,  Pliila.  ed.,  1854.     Vol.  I.  p.  51. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  29 

§  7.  Another  feature  in  the  hideous  doctrine  of 
original  sin  remains  to  be  considered.  The  doctors 
of  theology  not  only  asserted,  in  relation  to  the  lust 
of  the  flesh,  derived,  as  they  said,  from  Adam's 
transgression,  that  "in  every  person  born  into  this 
world  it  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation ;" 
but  they  maintained,  moreover,  that  "  This  infection 
of  nature  doth  remain,  yea,  in  them  that  are  regen- 
erate, whereby  the  flesh  lusteth  always  contrary  to 
the  Spirit."1 

§  8.  This  doctrine  was  rejected  by  the  Friends, 
and  was  one  of  the  prominent  points  of  controversy 
between  them  and  their  adversaries.  "The  Protes- 
tant priests,  ministers,  and  teachers,"  writes  George 
Fox,  "preach  to  the  people  and  teach  them  both  in 
public  and  private,  that  they  must  carry  a  body  of 
sin  and  a  body  of  death,  as  long  as  they  live  on  this 
side  the  grave;  and  none  can  be  made  free  from  sin 
and  this  body  of  death  as  long  as  they  live  upon  the 
earth."2  This  doctrine  he  utterly  denies  and  calls 
it  "preaching  sin  for  term  of  life." 

"And  again,"  he  says,  "Satan's  messengers  and 
ministers  say,  'Paul  cried  out  and  said,  "0  wretched 
man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this  death  ? "  And  he  was  in  a  warfare,  and  there- 
fore people  must  be  in  a  warfare  and  carry  a  body 
of  death  and  a  body  of  sin  about  them  as  long  as 
they  live,  to  the  grave,  and  there  is  no  overcoming 
nor  victory  here.'     But  in  this,  Satan's  messengers 

1  Articles  of  Church  of  England ;  Revised  by  Westminster 
Assembly.     Neal's  Hist,  of  Puritans,  II.  456. 

2  Works  of  G.  F..  VI.  436. 

3*  IV  — R 


30  VIEWS    OF    THE   EARLY    FRIENDS. 

and  ministers  wrong  the  apostle's  words,  and  do  not 
take  them  all ;  for  though  he  cried  out,  who  shall 
deliver  him  from  that  body  of  death  and  sin,  yet  he 
thanks  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  and 
saith,  'The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus,  hath  made  me  free  from  the  laws  of 
sin  and  death."'  *  *  *  *  "There  is  no  condemna- 
tion to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus  who  walk  not 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,"  *  *  *  * 
"Thanks  be  to  God  who  hath  given  us  the  victory 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  *  *  *  *  "They 
that  be  in  Christ  arc  new  creatures."1 

In  his  Journal,  George  Fox  thus  speaks  of  the 
joy  and  peace  that  succeeded  his  deep  trials  and 
mental  conflict-:  "Now  was  I  come  up  in  Spirit 
through  the  flaming  sword  into  the  paradise  of  God. 
All  things  were  new,  and  all  the  creation  gave 
another  smell  unto  me  than  before,  bevond  what 
words  can  utter.  I  knew  nothing  but  purene  . 
innocence,  and  righteousness,  bring  renewed  up 
into  the  imau'c  of  God  by  Christ  Jesus;  so  that  I 
was  come  up  to  the  state  of  Adam,  which  he  was 
in  before  the  fall."  *  *  *  *  "But  I  was  immedi- 
ately taken  up  in  spirit  to  sec  another  or  more  stead- 
fast state  than  Adam's  in  innocency,  even  into  a 
state  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  should  never  fall."2 

§  9.  The  doctrine  of  Perfection,  as  held  by  the 
early  Friends,  is  thus  laid  down  by  Esaac  Penning- 
ton. "That  the  Lord  God  is  able  perfectly  to  re- 
deem from  sin  in  tins  lite ;  that  he  can  cast  out  the 

1  Works  of  G.  F.,  VI.  442. 

3  Journal  of  G.  F.    New  York,  1800.    1.21,22. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  31 

strong  man,  cleanse  the  house,  and  make  it  fit  for 
himself  to  dwell  in  ;  that  he  can  finish  transgression 
and  sin  in  the  heart,  and  brins:  in  everlasting  right- 
eousness ;  that  he  can  tread  down  Satan  under  the 
feet  of  his  saints,  and  make  them  more  than  con- 
querors over  him ;  this,  they  confess,  they  steadily 
believe.  But  that  every  one  that  is  turned  to  the 
light  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  his  heart,  is  presently 
advanced  to  this  state,  they  never  held  forth;  but 
that  the  way  is  long,  the  travel  hard,  the  enemies 
and  difficulties  many,  and  that  there  is  need  of  much 
faith,  hope,  patience,  repentance,  watchfulness  against 
temptations,  &c,  before  the  life  in  them  arrive  at 
such  a  pitch.  Yet,  for  all  this,  saitli  Christ  to  his  dis- 
ciples, 'Be  ye  perfect;'  directing  them  to  aim  at  such 
a  thing:  and  the  apostle  saitli,  'Let  us  go  on  unto 
perfection;'  and  Christ  gave  n  ministry  'for  the  por- 
ting of  the  saints:'  and  they  do  not  doubt  but 
that  he  that  begins  the  work,  can  perfect  it  even  in 
this  life,  and  so  deliver  them  out  of  the  hands  of 
sin,  Satan,  and  all  their  spiritual  enemies,  as  that  they 
may  Berve  God  without  fear  of  them  any  more,  in 
holiness  and  righteousness  before  him  all  the  days 
of  their  lives."1 

§  10.  George  Fox,  when  examined  by  the  magis- 
trates at  Derby,  was  asked,  "Are  you  sanctified?" 
"Yes,"  he  said,  "I  am  in  the  paradise  of  God." 
"Have  you  no  sin?"  "Christ  my  Saviour  hath 
taken  away  my  sin,  and  in  him  there  is  no  sin." 
"How  do  you  know  that  Christ  abides  in  you?" 

1  Works  of  I.  P.,  I.  2G9. 


32  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY   FRIENDS. 

"  By  his  Spirit  that  lie  hath  given  me."  "Are  any 
of  you  Christ?"  "Nay,"  he  replied,  "we  are 
nothing,  Christ  is  all." 


CHAPTER  IV. 


VIEWS  OF   THE  EARLY  FRIENDS  COMPARED   WITH 
THE  POPULAR  THEOLOGY  OX  THE  DIVINE  BEING. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  thus  defined  in  the 
articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  revised  by  the 
Assembly  of  divines  at  Westminster  in  the  year  1643. 

"There  is  but  one  living  and  true  God,  everlast- 
ing, without  body,  parts,  or  passions ;  of  infinite 
power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  the  maker  and  pro- 
server  of  all  things,  both  visible  and  invisible.  And 
in  unity  of  this  Godhead  there  be  three  j)crsons  of 
one  substance,  power,  and  eternity,  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Son  which  is  the 
Word  of  the  Father,  begotten  from  everlasting  of 
the  Father,  the  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father,  took  man's  nature  in  the 
womb  of  the  blessed  virgin,  of  her  substance,  so 
that  two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say 
the  Godhead  and  the  manhood,  were  joined  together 
in  one  person  never  to  be  divided,  whereof  is  one 
Christ,  very  God  and  very  man."1  *  *  *  * 

§  2.  The  commonly  received  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity was  rejected   by  the  early  Friends.      George 

1  Neal's  Hist,  of  Puritans,  II.  454. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY   FRIENDS.  33 

Pox,  in  reply  to  Christopher  Wade,  who  had  asserted 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  person  and  that  there  was 
a  Trinity  of  three  persons  before  Christ  was  born, 
says :  "  Thou  knowest  not  him  that  is  in  the  Father 
and  the  Father  in  him,  glorified  with  the  Father 
"before  the  world  began.  And  the  Scriptures  do  not 
tell  people  of  a  trinity,  nor  three  persons,  but  the 
common-prayer  mass  book  speaks  of  three  persons, 
brought  in  by  thy  father  the  pope,  and  the  Father, 
Bon,  and  Holy  Spirit  was  always  one."1 

Priest  Ferguson  having  asserted  that  "Christ  and 
the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  not  one  ;  but 
they  are  three,  therefore  distinct,"  G.  Fox  replies: 
"This  is  the  denying  of  Christ's  doctrine,  who  said, 
'I  and  my  Father  are  one,'  and  the  Holy  Ghost  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  he  was  con- 
ceived by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  they  are  all  one,  not 
distinct,  but  one  in  unity,  that  which  comes  out  from 
him,  leads  the  saints  into  all  truth,  (that  ever  was 
giveu  forth  from  the  Spirit  of  Truth,)  and  so  up  to 
the  Father  of  truth,  and  so  goes  back  again  from 
whence  it  came."2 

Stephen  Crisp,  in  his  "Description  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland,"  says:  "The  doctrines  of  your  church 
also  are  reprovable  and  corrupt  in  many  things, 
contrary  to  the  Scriptures.  And  first  in  your  doc- 
trines of  God,  whom  you  say  is  to  be  known  and 
believed  on  as  in  the  distinguishment  of  three  per- 
sons; and  herein  ye  teach  contrary  to  the  scriptures 


1  Great  Mystery,  246  ;  and  Works  of  G.  F.,  III.  307. 
8  G.  F.  Great  Mystery,  p.  293  ;  and  Works,  III.  463. 

R2 


34  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

of  truth,  which  ye  say  is  your  rule,  and  by  it  are  all 
such  dreamers  and  deceivers  judged,  and  by  the 
spirit  which  gave  them  forth,  which  speaks  nowhere 
of  three  persons,  as  ye  imagine  and  teach,  but  de- 
clares of  the  only  wise  God,  who  is  one  in  his  being 
and  subsistence,  individual,  infinite;  who  divideth 
all  things  and  to  every  sort  their  portion;  who  lim- 
iteth  all  things  and  is  not  limited;  whose  power  and 
spirit  is  inseparable  from  him,  who  is  the  Father  of 
the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  who  by  his  power  createth 
and  by  his  spirit  quiekenetk  all  living  creatures; 
wJiose  power  is  the  Christ,  and  whose  spirit  is  the  holy 
and  eternal  life  which  the}'  partake  of  who  wait  for 
his  appearance  in  his  power.  And  these  doth  not 
the  Scriptures  call  three  persons,  but  the  one  witness 
in  the  Heaven,  which  you  arc  all  ignorant  of  who 
dream  and  divine  to  the  people  of  a  distinguishment 
of  persons  in  the  Godhead."  1 

In  relation  to  "The  Trinity  of  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate persons  in  the  unity  of  essence,"  Wm.  Penn 
writes  as  follows:  "It  is  requisite  I  should  inform 
thee,  reader,  concerning  its  original:  thou  mayst 
assure  thyself  it  is  not  from  the  Scriptures,  nor 
reason,  since  so  expressly  repugnant;  although  all 
broachers  of  their  own  inventions  strongly  endeavor 
to  reconcile  them  with  that  holy  record.  Know  then, 
my  friend,  it  was  born  above  three  hundred  years 
after  the  ancient  gospel  was  declared,  and  that 
through  the  nice  distinctions  and  too  daring  curi- 
osity of  the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  who   being  as 


S.  Crisp's  Works,  p.  75. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  35 

hotly  opposed  by  Arius,  their  zeal  so  reciprocally 
blew  the  fire  of  contention,  animosity,  and  persecu- 
tion, till  at  last  they  sacrificed  each  other  to  their 
mutual  revenge."  *  *  *  *  "Be  therefore  cautioned, 
reader,  not  to  embrace  the  determination  of  preju- 
diced councils  for  evangelical  doctrine  which  the 
Scriptures  bear  no  certain  testimony  to ;  neither  was 
believed  by  the  primitive  saints,  or  thus  stated  by 
any  I  have  read  of  in  the  first,  second,  or  third  cen- 
turies; particularly  Irenseus,  Justin  Martyr,  Tertul- 
lian,  Origen,  with  many  others  who  appear  wholly 
foreign  to  the  matter  in  controversy." 

After  quoting  many  passages  of  Scripture  show- 
ing that  God  is  one,  and  there  is  no  other  besides 
Him,  he  thus  proceeds:  "If  God,  as  the  Scriptures 
testify,  hath  never  been  declared  or  believed,  but  as 
the  Holy  One,  then  will  it  follow,  that  God  is  not  an 
holy  three,  nor  doth  subsist  in  three  distinct  and 
separate  Holy  Ones."1 

From  the  conclusion  of  the  same  work,  the  fol- 
lowing passage  is  quoted:- — "Mistake  me  not,  we 
never  have  disowned  a  Father,  Word,  and  Spirit, 
which  are  One,  but  man's  inventions:  For,  1.  Their 
Trinity  has  not  so  much  as  a  foundation  in  the 
Scriptures.     2.  Its  original  was  three  hundred  years 

1  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken.  This  treatise  is  included  in 
Penn's  Select  Works  published  under  the  care  of  the  London  Meet- 
ing for  Sufferings  in  1771.  By  a  minute  of  London  Yearly  Meeting, 
dated  17G8,  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  was  desired  to  send  to  the 
several  counties,  the  new  proposals  laid  before  that  meeting  for 
printing  the  selected  parts  of  W.  Penn's  Works  on  larger  paper 
and  better  letter. 


36  VIEWS    OF    THE   EARLY    FRIENDS. 

after  Christianity  was  in  the  world.  3.  It  having 
cost  much  blood;  in  the  council  of  Sirmium,  Anno 
355,  it  was  decided  that  thenceforth  the  controversy 
should  not  be  remembered,  because  the  Scriptures 
of  God  make  no  mention  thereof.  "Why  then  should 
it  be  mentioned  now  with  a  Maranatlia  on  all  that 
will  not  bow  to  this  abstruse  opinion?  4.  And  it 
doubtless  hath  occasioned  idolatry:  witness  the 
popish  images  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  5. 
It  scandalizeth  Jews,  Turks,  and  Infidels,  and  pal- 
pably obstructs  their  reception  of  the  Christian 
doctrine." 

§  3.  Such  is  William  Penn's  clear  and  decided 
testimony  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as 
held  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Church  of  England, 
and  nearly  all  the  Protestant  sects;  but  in  a  later 
work  he  acknowledges  what  he  calls  the  "Scripture 
Trinity."1  It  being  charged  that  "the  Quakers  deny 
the  Trinity,"  he  answers  in  these  words :  "Nothing 
less.  They  believe  in  the  Holy  three,  or  Trinity 
of  Father,  Word,  and  Spirit,  according  to  Scripture. 
And  that  these  three  arc  truly  and  properly  one : 
of  one  nature  as  well  as  will;  but  they  arc  very 
tender  of  quitting  Scripture  terms  for  schoolmen's ; 
such  as,  'distinct  and  separate  persons,'  and  subsist- 
ences, &c.  are;  from  whence  people  arc  apt  to  en- 
tertain gross  ideas  and  notions  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost." 

In  this  passage  he  refers  to  the  text  1  John  v.  7 : 
"There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the 

1  The  Key,  Penn's  Select  Works,  p.  682. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  37 

Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these 
three  are  one.''  This  text  is  not  found  in  the  most 
ancient  Greek  manuscripts  extant,  it  is  omitted  in 
Luther's  translation  of  the  Bible,  it  is  inserted  in 
the  early  English  translations,  but  with  marks  of 
doubtfulness,  and  its  genuineness  is  now  considered 
too  doubtful  to  allow  of  its  use  in  substantiating 
Christian  doctrine.1 

In  the  doctrinal  writings  of  the  early  Friends 
this  text  is  often  quoted,  and  a  marked  emphasis  is 
generally  placed  on  the  last  clause,  which  they  un- 
derstood to  mean  that  God  is  truly  and  properly  one 
Divine  Being. 

§  4.  When  the  Act  of  toleration  was  about  to  be 
passed  in  the  reign  of  William  and  Mary,  it  con- 
tained a  clause  extending  its  benefits  to  "All  such 
who  profess  faith  in  God  the  Father,  and  in  Jesus 
Christ  his  Eternal  Son,  the  true  God,  and  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  co-equal  with  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
One  God  blessed  forever:  And  do  acknowledge 
the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Xew  Testament 
to  be  the  revealed  will  and  word  of  God." 

This  confession  being  considered  by  Friends  "un- 
scriptural,"  George  Whitehead  and  John  Vaughton 
presented  to  a  committee  of  Parliament  the  follow- 
ing substitute,  which  was  adopted,  viz. :  "I  profess 
faith  in  God  the  Father,  and  in  Jesus  Christ  his 
eternal  Son  the  true  God,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
One  God  blessed  forever;  and  do  acknowledge  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Xew  Testament 
to  be  given  by  Divine  inspiration." 

1  See  Clark's  Commentary. 


38  VIEWS    OF   THE    EARLY   FRIENDS. 

In  relation  to  this  confession  of  faith,  George 
Whitehead  observes  :  "We  were  therefore  of  neces- 
sity put  upon  offering  the  said  confession,  it  being 
also  our  known  professed  principle,  sincerely  to  con- 
fess Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  His  divinity 
and  as  he  is  the  Eternal  Word :  and  that  the  three 
which  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  one:  one  divine  Being,  one 
God  blessed  forever."  l 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  confession  of  faith 
first  proposed  in  the  Bill  before  Parliament,  con- 
tained this  expression,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  co-equal 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son,"  —  which  seemed  to 
imply  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  Friends.  They  did 
not  admit  of  any  such  distinction ;  but  believed  in 
God  as  a  Spirit,  holy,  wise  and  good,  omniscient, 
omnipresent  and  omnipotent. 

§  5.  Robert  Barclay,  in  his  "  Apology  Vindicated," 
thus  replies  to  an  opponent:  "  I  desire  to  know  of 
him  in  what  Scripture  he  finds  these  words,  'That 
the  Spirit  is  a  distinct  person  of  the  Trinity?'  For 
I  freely  acknowledge,  according  to  the  Scripture, 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  proceecleth  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  and  is  God."2 

These  quotations  may  be  sufficient  to  prove  that 
the  early  Friends  believed  in  the  unity  of  the  Di- 
vine Being,  agreeably  to  the  Scripture  testimony ; 
"  To  as  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are 


1  Christian  Progress  of  G.  Whitehead,  London  ed.  1725,  p.  635. 

2  Barclay's  Works,  London  ed.  1092,  p.  745. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY   FRIENDS.  39 

all  things,  and  we  in  him."  The  second  part  of  the 
text  remains  now  to  be  considered:  "And  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  by  whom  are  all  things  and  we  by 
him."1 

§  6.  The  Divinity  of  Christ,  or  God  manifest  in 
the  flesh,  was  uniformly  maintained  as  one  of  the 
doctrines  of  Friends ;  they  also  acknowledged  his 
manhood  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures. 

Man  is  an  immortal  soul  united  to  a  mortal  body. 
The  body  is  referred  to  by  the  Apostle  Paul  as  a 
house  in  which  the  soul  lodges  for  a  time.  He  says  : 
"We  know  that  if  our  earthlv  house  of  this  taber- 
nacle  were  dissolved,  we  have  a  building  of  God,  a 
house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens."  2 
The  Messiah  also  referred  to  the  body  as  a  temple, 
saying,  "Destroy  this  temple  and  in  three  days  I 
will  raise  it  up."  *  *  *  *  "  But  he  spake  of  the 
temple  of  his  body."3  In  this  prediction  it  is  the 
soul  that  speaks,  in  the  name  or  power  of  God,  for 
it  is  said  he  was  "raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father."4  The  soul  of  Christ  is  spoken 
of  in  the  Scriptures.  He  said,  "Now  is  my  soul 
troubled."  *  *  *  *  "My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrow- 
ful, even  unto  death."5  And  in  the  Acts  we  read 
that  "His  soul  was  not  left  in  hell  [Hades],  neither 
his  flesh  did  see  corruption." 

§  T.  The  cmestion  arises,  was  it  a  human  soul? 
He  spoke  of  himself  as  a  man,  saying,  "  Now  ye 
seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  told  you  the  truth, 

1  1  Cor.  viii.  G.  2  2  Cor.  v.  1. 

3  John  ii.  19,  21.  4  Rom.  yi.  4. 

6  John  xii.  27;  Matt.  xsvi.  38;  Mark  xiv.  13. 


40  VIEWS   OF   THE   EARLY   FRIENDS. 

which  I  have  heard  of  God." ■  John  the  Baptist  said 
of  him,  "  After  me  cometh  a  man  which  is  preferred 
before  me;  for  he  was  before  me."  And  Peter,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  spoke  of  him,  as  "  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God,  among  you  by 
miracles  and  wonders  and  signs  which  God  did  by 
him."  2  "  He  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels, 
but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  where- 
fore, in  all  things,  it  behooved  him,  to  be  made  like 
unto  his  brethren  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and 
faithful  high-priest."3  "  For  we  have  not  an  high- 
priest  which  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feelings  of 
our  infirmities,  but  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as 
we  are,  yet  without  sin."4  Now  if  he  was  in  all 
things  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  and  in  all  points 
tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin ;  it  follows 
that  he  had  the  appetites,  affection  and  desires  of 
our  animal  and  spiritual  nature  which,  if  unre- 
strained, will  lead  to  sin  ;  but  these  propensities 
were  all  kept  in  their  places  and  governed  by  that 
Divine  power  which  dwelt  in  him,  "For  it  pleased 
the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell."  5 

§  8.  Let  us  now  consider  who  it  was  that  "  took 
on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,"  thus  assuming  human 
nature,  in  order  to  redeem  mankind,  and  who 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the 
gospel.  It  was  the  Eternal  Word  (Logos)  that  was 
in  the  beginning  with  God  and  was  God.  "The 
"Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  (and  we 
beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-begottep 

1  John  viii.  40.  2  Acts  ii.  22.  8  Ileb.  ii.  1G,  17. 

*  Ileb.  iv.  15.  6  Col.  i.  19. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  41 

of  the  Father,)  full  of  grace  and  truth."1  "For 
the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen  it  and 
bear  witness  and  show  unto  you  that  eternal  life 
which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested 
unto  us."2  "When  the  Most  High,  "in  the  begin- 
ning," put  forth  his  creative  energy,  saying,  "Let 
there  be  light;"  this  divine  "Word,"  by  which  he 
spoke  the  worlds  into  being,  was  an  emanation  from 
himself,  a  manifestation  of  his  wisdom  and  power. 
The  same  holy  and  divine  Wrord  was  manifested 
to  our  first  parents,  while  in  a  state  of  innocence,  — 
as  their  light  and  life  ;  but  when  they  had  trans- 
gressed the  divine  law,  it  became  their  reprover,  for 
when  they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God  walking 
in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day,  they  hid  them- 
selves, and  the  Lord  called  unto  Adam,  and  said 
unto  him,  "  Where  art  thou  ? " 

The  Apostle  Paul  refers  to  this  Eternal  Word,  as 
being  with  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness, 
for  "they  drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  that  followed 
them,  and  that  rock  was  C1irist."z  Peter  also  refers 
to  the  same,  "the  Spirit  of  Christ,"  which  was  in 
the  prophets,  and  which  "testified  beforehand  of 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glory  that  should 
follow."4 

In  a  treatise  by  Isaac  Pennington,  entitled  "Life 
and  Immortality  brought  to  Light,"  he  treats  "of  the 
threefold  appearance  of  Christ,  to  wit,  under  the 
law,  in  a  body  of  flesh,  and  in  his  spirit  and  powTer.  ' 

1  John  i.  14.  2  1  John.  i.  2. 

3  1  Cor.  x.  4.  *  1  Pet.  i.  11. 

4*  S 


42  VIEWS    OF   THE    EARLY   FRIENDS. 

Under  the  first  head,  he  refers  to  the  various  ap- 
pearances of  Christ,  as  related  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,—  to  Abraham  on  the  plains  of  Mamre, — to 
Jacob  when  he  wrestled  with  the  angel, — to  Moses 
at  the  burning  bush, — to  Joshua  at  Jericho,  as  the 
captain  of  the  Lord's  host, — to  the  three  children  in 
the  fieiy  furnace,  when  he  appeared  in  the  midst  of 
the  fire  in  a  form  like  the  Son  of  God,  —  "and  par- 
ticularly that  glorious  appearance  of  God,  sitting 
upon  a  throne  and  his  train  filling  the  temple,  as 
seen  by  Isaiah,1  when  the  Seraphims  cried  one  unto 
another  and  said,  Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory."  This 
was  an  appearance  of  Christ  to  the  prophet,  as  is 
manifest,  John  xii.  41,  where  the  Evangelist  (relat- 
ing to  that  place)  useth  this  expression:  "These 
things  said  Isaiah,  when  he  saw  his  glory  and  spake 
of  him." 

"  Secondly,  concerning  Christ's  appearance  in  the 
body  of  flesh.  When  the  time  of  these  shadows 
drew  towards  an  end,  and  the  fulness  of  time  was 
come,  he  who  thus  appeared  in  several  types  and 
shadows  among  that  people  of  the  Jews  under  the 
law,  now  came  down  from  the  Father,  debased  him- 
self, and  clothed  himself  like  a  man,  partaking  of 
flesh  and  blood,  and  was  in  all  things  made  like  unto 
us,  (excepting  sin,  for  he  was  the  Lamb  without 
spot,)  .humbling  himself  to  come  under  the  law 
(and  under  the  curse)  by  fulfilling  the  righteousness 
thereof,  and  bringing  them  through  into  the  right- 
eousness everlasting.      Now  while  he  was  in  the 

1  Isa.  vi. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  43 

body,  his  glory  did  shine  to  the  eye  of  the  children 
of  true  wisdom :  his  disciples,  (to  whom  not  flesh 
and  blood,  nor  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  which 
they  could  get  from  the  letter,  but  his  Father  re- 
vealed him,)  they  saw  the  hidden  glory ;  they  saw 
through  the  veil  of  flesh,  and  beheld  him  as  the 
only -begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  aud 
truth. 

"  Thirdly.  !N"ow  the  third  appearance  of  Christ, 
which  these  two  outward  appearances  made  way  for, 
was  his  appearance  in  spirit ;  even  his  pure,  inward, 
heavenly  appearance  in  the  hearts  of  his  children. 
This  he  bids  his  disciples  wait  for,  telling  them  that 
he  would  not  leave  them  comfortless,  but  would  come 
again  to  them."  *  *  *  *  "  Did  not  Christ  send  the 
Spirit,  the  Comforter?  Did  he  not  come  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  the  Most  High,  to  be  with  them 
always  to  the  end  of  the  world?" ' 

§  9.  These  views  of  Pennington  are  in  accordance 
with  those  generally  expressed  in  the  writings  of  the 
early  Friends;  but  the  objection  may  arise,  in  the 
minds  of  some :  are  there  not  here  two  Christs  held 
forth,  —  one  the  Eternal  Word,  the  other  "the  man 
Christ  Jesus"  ?  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  it  was 
the  indwelling  of  the  Father  that  constituted  Jesus 
the  Christ, — the  anointed  of  God, — the  Saviour  of 
men.  He  said,  "I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  noth- 
ing; as  I  hear  I  judge,  and  my  judgment  is  just, 
because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
the  Father  which  sent  me."     "The  words  that  I 

1  Pennington's  Works,  I.  376,  380. 


44  VIEWS    OF   THE    EARLY   FRIENDS. 

speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  myself,  but  the  Father 
that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works."1 

§  10.  In  none  of  the  writings  of  the  early  Friends 
is  this  point  more  fully  elucidated  than  in  the  ac- 
count given  by  Sewel  and  Perm,  of  a  debate  between 
the  Friends  and  Baptists  at  the  Barbican  in  London, 
in  the  year  1674.  The  disputants  on  the  part  of  the 
Friends  were  George  "Whitehead,  Stephen  Crisp, 
William  Perm,  and  George  Keith.  At  that  time, 
Keith  was  in  full  unity  with  the  Society,  it  being 
about  eighteen  years  before  his  apostasy.  An  ac- 
count of  this  controversy  having  been  given  in  the 
Second  Volume  of  this  history,  Chapter  XII.,  its 
insertion  here  is  deemed  unnecessary.  It  contains 
an  exposition  of  the  views  of  the  early  Friends  in 
relation  to  the  divinity  and  manhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 
They  affirmed  that  "these  names  [Jesus  Christ]  are 
given  to  him  most  properly  and  eminently  as  God,  and 
less  properly,  yet  truly  as  man."  And  in  William 
Penn's  letter  to  G.  Fox,  concerning  this  debate,  he 
says:  "Christ  is  called  the  head,  that  is,  the  most 
noble  member :  the  church  the  body,  and  particulars 
are  styled  members  of  that  body."  *  *  *  *  "  In  my 
confession  at  the  close,  I  said  that  we  believed  in 
Christ:  both  as  he  was  the  man  Jesus,  and  God 
over  all,  blessed  forever.  And  I  am  sure  Paul  di- 
vides him  more  than  we  did,  [Rom.  ix.  5,)  since  he 
makes  a  distinction  between  Christ  as  God  and 
Christ  as  man." 

Another   letter  of    William   Penn,  addressed  to 

1  John  v.  30,  and  xiv.  10. 


VIEWS    OF    THE   EAKLY   FRIEXDS.  45 

Robert  Turner  in  1692,  in  relation  to  the  Keithian 
controversy,  alludes  to  the  same  subject  as  follows, 
viz.:  "As  to  believing  in  Christ's  manhood,  it  is 
Friends'  principle,  he  is  like  unto  us  in  all  things, 
sin  excepted,  and  that  manhood  is  not  vanished ; 
though  out  of  sicrht,  it  is  somewhere ;  and  wherever 
it  is,  it  must  be  in  a  glorified  state ;  but  what  that 
state  is,  or  where  it  is,  or  how  to  frame  ideas  of 
either  in  our  minds,  are  intrusions  or  curiosities 
above  what  is  written  or  convenient.  Can  we  hope 
our  manhood  shall  be  glorified  and  denv  his  to  be 
so,  that  made  way  with  his  within  the  vail,  for  ours  ? 
He  is  glorified  for  us  as  our  common  head,  and  we 
shall  with  him  be  glorified  too,  as  his  members,  if  we 
through  patience  and  tribulation  overcome  also." 
*  *  *  *  n  -g u j.  now  wnen  tnis  \s  said,  that  Christ 

came  in  our  nature,  and  has  glorified  it  as  an  eternal 
temple  to  himself,  yet  he  is  to  be  known  nearer 
(than  so  without  us),  and  that  is  in  us.  Thus  Paul 
knew  him,  and  preached  him  as  the  riches  of  the 
glory  of  the  Christian  day,  the  mystery  hid  from 
ages  and  generations,  and  then  revealed  '  Christ  in 
them  the  hope  of  glory.' "  ' 

§  11.  In  the  year  1G01,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Keithian  controversy  in  Pennsylvania,  a  number  of 
the  most  prominent  Friends  in  England  addressed 
an  Epistle  to  the  brethren  in  America,  from  which 
the  following  passage  is  selected.  "Do  not  we  be- 
lieve our  souls  are  immortal,  and  shall  be  preserved 
in  their  distinct  and  proper  beings,  and  spiritual 


1  Janney's  Life  of  Perm,  p.  375. 

S2 


46  VIEWS   OF   THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

glorious  bodies,  such  as  shall  be  proper  for  them,  as 
it  shall  please  God  to  give,  that  we  may  be  capable 
of  our  particular  rewards  and  different  degrees  of 
glory  after  this  life,  or  in  the  world  to  come ;  as  one 
star  differs  from  another  star  in  glory  and  magnitude, 
and  they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness  shall  shine 
as  the  stars  in  the  firmament  forever  and  ever? 
How  then  can  it  be  otherwise  believed,  or  appre- 
hended in  the  truth,  but  that  our  most  blessed  and 
elder  brother  Jesus  Christ,  even  as  mediator,  is  ever 
in  being  in  a  most  glorious  state,  (as  with  his 
Heavenly  Father,)  who  in  the  day  of  his  flesh  on 
earth,  so  deeply  and  unspeakably  suffered  for  us  and 
for  all  mankind,  both  inwardly  and  outwardly,  — in- 
wardly by  temptations,  sorrows,  and  burthens,  (as  to 
his  innocent  soul  by  man's  iniquities,)  and  outwardly 
by  persecutions  and  the  cruel  death  of  the  cross,  as 
to  his  blessed  body,  which  arose  again  the  third 
clay,  and  wherein  he  also  ascended,  according  to  the 
Scriptures ;  but  it  has  not  seemed  proper  or  safe  for 
us  to  be  inquisitive  about  what  manner  of  change 
his  body  had  or  met  with  after  his  resurrection  and 
ascension,  so  as  to  become  so  glorious,  heavenly  or 
celestial  as  no  doubt  it  is,  far  transcending  what  it 
was  when  on  earth,  in  a  humble,  low,  and  suffer- 
ing condition." 

"  Neither  has  it  been  our  places  to  be  curious  or 
inquisitive  about  the  bodies  of  the  saints  hereafter, 
as  to  question  how  the  dead  are  or  shall  be  raised, 
or  with  what  bodies  do  they  come,  (or  come  they 
forth).  For  if  the  apostle  esteemed  such  questions 
necessary  to  salvation,  he  would  not  have  given 
them  such  reprehension  and  answers  as  he  did  in 


VIEWS    OF    THE   EAELY    FRIENDS.  47 

general  terms,  and  for  a  spiritual  body  to  be  raised 
and  given  as  it  pleaseth  God,  distinguishing  the 
spiritual  from  the  natural,  and  the  celestial  from  the 
terrestrial  bodies,  which  we  have  always  believed,  in 
opposition  to  carnal  professors,  gross  and  carnal  com 
ceptions  and  imaginations,  about  the  sameness  of 
carnal  or  earthly  bodies."  ' 

§  12.  In  this  letter,  it  will  be  observed,  there  are 
two  points  pertinent  to  the  present  inquiry.  First. 
It  was  the  belief  of  those  Friends,  that  Jesus  Christ, 
the  head  of  the  Church,  and  the  saints,  his  mem- 
bers, in  their  heavenly  state,  are  not  in  carnal,  but 
in  spiritual  bodies.  This  agrees  with  the  following 
language  of  G.  Fox:  "So  if  the  'vile  body'  be 
changed  and  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  it 
is  not  the  same,  and  consequently  do  not  ye  under- 
value the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  his  body,  ye  that  are 
giving  such  by-names  to  his  body,  as  humane  and 
humanity  ?  Yea,  some  have  been  so  bold  as  to  say 
that  he  is  in  heaven  with  a  natural  and  carnal  body, 
but  these  have  been  some  of  the  grossest  sort  of 
professors."2. 

Secondly.  The  phrase,  "our  most  blessed  and 
elder  brother  Jesus  Christ,"  which  occurs  in  the  fore- 
going letter,  is  significant ;  nor  is  this  the  only  in- 
stance in  which  it  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
early  Friends.     William  Bayly  writes  of  our  being 

1  This  letter,  dated  London  28th,  7th  month,  1691,  was  signed 
by  George  Whitehead,  Samuel  Waldingfield,  John  Field,  Benj. 
Antrobus,  William  Bingley,  John  Vaughton,  Alex.  Seaton,  Danl. 
Monro,  and  Patrick  Livingston.  It  is  inserted  in  Smith's  Hist, 
of  Pa.,  Hazard's  Register,  Vol.  VI.  p.  243,  and  in  Bowden's  Hist. 
Vol.  II. 

8  Doctrinals,  467,  and  Am.  ed.,  V.  154. 


48  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

"  possessors  of  a  measure  of  the  same  spirit  of  grace 
and  truth  that  was  in  that  person  Christ  our  elder 
brother."1  And  G.  Fox  the  younger,  in  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  General  Monk,  referring  to  the  spirit  of 
forgiveness  which  he  felt,  says,  "  This  I  have  learned 
of  Christ  my  elder  brother,  who  is  my  strength  and 
ability,  in  whom  I  have  peace,  which  the  world  can- 
not take  away."  2 

§  13.  The  expression  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
sacred  writings,  hut  appears  to  he  deduced  from  them. 
The  first-horn,  or  elder  brother,  amongthe  Jews,  was  the 
head  of  the  family  or  tribe,  and  the  heir  of  his  father's 
authority.  The  term  was  used  as  a  title  of  dignity. 
The  Apostle  Paul  speaks  of  the  Son  of  God  as  the 
first-born  among  many  brethren," 3  "  For  both  he  that 
sanctifieth  and  the}7  who  are  sanctified,  are  all  of  one; 
for  which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them 
brethren,  saying,  I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my 
brethren,  in  the  midst  of  the  church  will  I  sing  praise 
unto  thee."4  The  Messiah  frequently  referred  to  the 
believers  as  his  brethren.  After  he  was  risen,  he  said 
to  Mary  Magdalene,  "  Go  to  my  brethren  and  say 
unto  them,  '  I  ascend  unto  my  Father  and  to  your 
Father,  and  to  my  God  and  your  God.'  " 5 

§  14.  It  will  be  observed  that  William  Penn  in  his 
letter  to  G.  Fox,  says,  "  Christ  is  called  the  Head, 
that  is  the  most  noble  member,  the  Church  the  body, 
and  particulars  are  styled  members  of  that  body." 
And  in  his  letter  to  P.  Turner,  again  writing  of  the 
manhood  of  Christ,  he  says,  "  He  is  glorified  for  us 

1  W.  Bayly's  Works,  Phila.,  1830,  p.  122. 

2  Writings  of  G.  Fox  the  younger,  London  ed.,  1665,  p.  266. 
8  Bom.  viii.  29.  4  Heb.  ii.  11,  12,  5  John  xx.  17. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EAKLY    FRIENDS.  49 

as  our  common  head,  and  we  shall  with  him  be  glori- 
fied too,  as  his  members,  if  we  through  patience  and 
tribulation  overcome  also."  This  appears  to  corre- 
spond with  the  Apostolic  writings,  in  which  the  church 
or  assembly  of  the  righteous  is  compared  to  the 
human  body.  "For  as  the  body  is  one  and  hath 
many  memjpers,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one 
body,  being  many  are  one  body:  so  also  is  Christ/'  * 
"  He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church ;  who  is 
the  beginning,  the  first-born  from  the  dead,  that  in 
all  things  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence.  For  it 
pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  fulness 
dwell."2  "Of  his  fulness  have  all  we  received,  and 
grace  for  grace."  3  "He  whom  God  hath  sent  speak- 
eth  the  words  of  God,  for  God  hath  not  given  the 
Spirit  by  measure  unto  him."  4  "There  is  one  God 
and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all, 
and  in  you  all,  but  to  every  one  of  us  is  given  grace 
according  to  the  measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ."  5 

§  15.  This  distinction  between  the  fulness  of  divine 
life  which  dwelt  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
measure  of  grace  imparted  to  the  members  of  his 
spiritual  body,  according  to  their  several  capacities 
or  the  services  required  of  them,  was  constantly  kept 
in  view  by  the  early  Friends.  It  was  so  distinctive  a 
feature  in  their  communications,  that  the  phrase, 
"according  to  my  measure,"  was  considered,  by  the 
world,  one  of  the  marks  of  Quakerism. 

§  16.  William  Penn,  in  his  "  Christian  Quaker,"  (ch. 
xvi.,)  writes  as  follows :  "  I  have  these  two  short 
arguments  farther  to  prove  what  I  believe  and  assert 


1  1  Cor.  xii.  12.  2  Col.  i.  18,  19.  *  John  i.  16. 

4  John  iii.  34.  *  Eph.  iv.  6,  7. 

IV- 5 


50  VIEWS  OF    THE    EARLY    FRIEXDS. 

as  to  the  spirituality  of  the  true  seed,  and  a  clear 
overthrow  it  is  to  the  opinion  of  our  adversaries  con- 
cerning the  true  Christ.  First,  every  thing  begets  its 
like.  What  is  simply  natural  produces  not  a  spiritual 
being.  Material  things  bring  not  forth  things  that 
are  immaterial.  ISTow  because  the  nature  or  ima^e 
begotten  in  the  hearts  of  true  believers-is  spiritual, 
it  will  follow,  that  the  seed  which  so  begets  and 
brings  forth  that  birth  must  be  the  same  in  nature 
with  that  which  is  begotten,  therefore  spiritual. 
Then  Christ's  bocly.  or  what  he  had  from  the  Virgin, 
strictly  considered  as  such  was  not  the  seed. 

"  Secondly,  it  is  clear  from  hence:  The  Serpent  is  a 
spirit.  !Now  nothing  bruises  the  serpent's  head  in 
man,  but  something  that  is  also  internal  and  spiritual, 
as  the  serpent  is.  But  if  the  body  of  Christ  were 
only  the  seed,  then  could  he  not  bruise  the  serpent's 
head  in  all,  because  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  so 
much  as  in  any  one,  (though  too  many  have  weakly 
concluded  it  upon  us,  from  a  perversion  or  mistake 
of  our  doctrine  of  Christ  in  man,  by  his  light  and 
spirit,)  and  consequently  the  seed  of  the  promise  is  an 
holy  and  spiritual  principle  of  light,  life,  and  power, 
that  beinsr  received  into  the  heart  bruiseth  the  ser- 
pent's  head.  And  because  the  seed  (which  in  this 
sense  cannot  be  that  body)  is  Christ,  as  testify  the 
Scriptures,  the  seed  is  one  and  that  seed  Christ,  and 
Christ  God  over  all  blessed  forever,  (G-al.  iii.  16,)  we 
do  conclude  that  Christ  was,  and  is,  the  Divine  word 
of  light  and  life,  that  was  in  the  beginning  with  God, 
and  was  and  is,  God  over  all  blessed  forever."  x 

§  17.  Robert  Barclay,  in  his  "Apology  for  the  true 

1  Perm's  Select  Works,  p.  260. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY   FRIENDS.  51 

Christian  Divinity;"  writing  of  the  seed,  grace,  or 
word  of  God,  —  the  Light  wherewith  every  one  is 
enlightened,  says,  by  this:  "We  understand  a  spirit- 
ual, heavenly  and  invisible  principle  in  which  God, 
as  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  dwells;  a  measure  of 
which  divine  and  glorious  life  is  in  all  men  as  a 
seed,  which  of  its  own  nature  draws,  invites  and  in- 
clines to  God."  *  *  *  *  "But  by  this  we  do  not  at 
all  intend  to  equal  ourselves  to  that  holy  man  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  who  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary, 
in  whom  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelt  bodily, 
so  neither  do  we  destroy  the  reality  of  his  present  ex- 
istence, as  some  have  falsely  calumniated  us.  For 
though  we  affirm  that  Christ  dwells  in  us,  yet  not 
immediately,  but  mediately,  as  he  is  in  that  seed 
which  is  in  us;  whereas  he,  to  wit,  the  Eternal  Word, 
which  was  with  God  and  was  God,  dwelt  immedi- 
ately in  that  holy  man.  He  then  is  as  the  head,  and 
we  as  the  members;  he  the  vine  and  we  the  branches. 
We  also  freely  reject  the  heresy  of  Appolinarius, 
who  denied  him  to  have  any  soul,  but  said  the  body 
was  only  actuated  by  the  Godhead.  As  also  the 
error  of  Eutyches,  who  made  the  manhood  to  be 
wholly  swallowed  up  of  the  Godhead.  Wherefore 
as  we  believe  he  was  a  true  and  real  man,  so  we  also 
believe  that  he  continues  so  to  be  glorified  in  the 
heavens  in  soul  and  body,  by  whom  God  shall  judge 
the  world,  in  the  great  and  general  day  of  judg- 
ment."1 

§  18.  The  same  author,  in  his  treatise  called  "  Qua- 
kerism confirmed,"  says:  "Christ in  us,  or  the  Seed, 
is  not  a  third  spiritual  nature,  distinct  from  that  which 


1  Apology,  Prop.  Y.  and  VI.,  §  13. 


52  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

was  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  that  was  crucified  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh  at  Jerusalem:"  *  *  *  *  "the 
same  seed  and  life  is  in  us,  which  was  in  him ;  aud 
is  in  him  in  the  fulness,  as  water  is  in  the  spring; 
and  in  us  as  the  stream:  and  this  seed  and  spiritual 
nature,  which  is  both  in  him  and  us,  doth  belong  to 
him,  as  he  is  the  second  Adam,  or  man  Christ." 
*  *  *  *  "This  seed  is  not  our  souls;  but  is  a  medium 
betwixt  G-od  and  us :  and  our  union  with  God  is  but 
mediate  through  this;  whereas  the  union  of  God  with 
this  is  immediate.  Therefore  none  of  us  are  either 
Christ  or  God;  but  God  and  Christ  are  in  us."1 
"If  a  man  love  me,"  said  Christ,  "he  will  keep  my 
words:  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  ive  will 
come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him."2 

Now,  if  this  Seed  or  Divine  Word,  "is  a  medium 
betwixt  God  and  us,"  and  our  union  with  him  "is 
but  mediate  through  this,"  it  must  be  through  this, 
that  our  Holy  Head  Christ  Jesus,  in  whom  all  ful- 
ness dwells,  is  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man. 
"For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  mediator  between 
God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."3  As  Moses 
was  a  Mediator  to  ordain  the  legal  dispensation,4  so 
Jesus  Christ  was  and  is  the  Mediator  of  the  New 
Covenant:  first  to  proclaim  and  exemplify  it,  in  the 
day  of  his  outward  advent;  and,  secondly,  through  all 
time,  in  the  ministrations  of  his  Spirit.  "The  Spirit 
itself  maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groan ings  that 
cannot  be  uttered.  And  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts 
knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  he 
maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  the 


1  Works  of  R.  B.,  p.  627  and  628.  2  John  xiv.  23. 

3 1  Tim.  ii.  5.  4  Deut.  v.  5.     Gal.  iii.  19. 


VIEWS    OF    THE   EARLY    FRIENDS.  53 

will  of  God."  *  *  *  *  "It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea, 
rather  that  is  risen  again,  who  is  even  at' the  right 
hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us."1 

In  accordance  with  this  view,  Geo.  Fox  writes:  "I 
say,  none  know  him  as  a  mediator  and  a  lawgiver, 
nor  an  offering,  nor  his  blood  that  cleanseth  them,  hut 
as  they  know  him  working  in  them,  and  they  be  in 
the  sophistry  of  their  divinity  that  know  not  the 
glory  of  the  grace  of  Christ  working  in  them."2 

§  19.  "We  ought  to  consider,"  writes  Geo.  White- 
head, "that  Christ  as  he  is  God  and  man,  does  not 
act,  or  give  spiritual  gifts  separately  from  God  the 
Creator;  whether  they  be  light,  grace,  spirit,  power, 
or  wisdom,  which  'are  one  principle  and  being;  for 
Jesus  Christ,  when  he  speaks  as  man,  or  as  Media- 
tor, always  gives  the  preference  to  the  Heavenly 
Father,  as  when  he  saith:  'The  Son  can  do  nothing 
of  himself  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do.  And 
my  Father  worketh  hitherto  and  I  work.'  And  like- 
wise what  power,  glory,  spirit,  life,  light,  and  wis- 
dom, the  Son  hath  to  give  or  impart  unto  men, 
(especially  unto  true  believers,  his  followers,)  it  is  all 
first  given  him  of  the  Father:  He  received  gifts  for 
men,  'yea,  for  the  rebellious  also,  that  the  Lord 
might  dwell  among  them,'  Psalm  lxviii.  18.  Of 
whom  did  he  receive  them,  but  of  his  Heavenly 
Father?"3 

§  20.  Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  writings  of 
the  early  Friends,  must  have  observed  the  deep  re- 
verence with  which  they  speak  of  the  blessed  Jesus, 
as  the  immaculate  Son  of  God,  and  Saviour  of  men. 

1  Rom.  viii.  20,  27,  34. 

3  Great  Mystery,  58.     Works,  Am.  ed.,  III.  119-20. 
3  Christian  Progress  of  G.  Whitehead,  p.  210. 
5*  IV  — T 


54  VIEWS    OF    THE   EAELY   FRIENDS. 

Doubtless  the  same  feeling  pervaded  their  religious 
discourses;  an  instance  of  which  is  here  subjoined, 
being  an  extract  from  a  "Farewell  Sermon,"  preached 
by  Wm.  Penn,  in  London  just  before  his  second  voy- 
age to  America  in  1699. 

"It  concerneth  us  all  to  live  in  the  exercise  of 
that  divine  gift,  and  grace  and  ability,  which  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  distributed  and  communi- 
cated to  every  member  of  his  body,  that  we  may 
come  to  shine  as  stars  in  the  firmament  of  glory. 
We  should  do  good  in  our  several  places  and  sta- 
tions, according  to  our  different  powers  and  capaci- 
ties. And  as  every  member'  is  by  the  circulation  of 
the  blood  made  useful  and  beneficial  in  the  natural 
body,  so  the  divine  life  and  blood  of  the  Son  of  God 
circulates  through  his  mystical  body,  and  readies  life 
to  every  living  member.  Here  is  no  obstruction 
through  unfaithfulness  or  inordinate  love  of  the 
world,  or  any  temptation  from  without  us,  or  cur- 
ruption  from  within  us.  Here  is  a  free  channel,  here 
is  an  open  passage  for  life  and  quickening  influences 
from  Christ  our  glorious  Head,  in  all  his  members. 
There  is  in  Christ  (in  whom  the  Godhead  dwells 
bodily)  a  river  whose  streams  make  glad  the  city  of 
God,  a  fountain  to  supply  and  refresh  the  whole  gen- 
eration of  the  righteous  that  desire  to  be  found  in 
Mhim,  (as  the  apostle  speaks,)  not  having  their  own 
righteousness,  but  clothed  with  the  robe  of  his 
righteousness,  which  is  the  garment  of  salvation."1 


1  Janney's  Life  of  Penn,  415  ;  and  The  Friend,,  London,  od  mo., 
1803. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  55 


CHAPTER  V. 

VIEWS  OF  THE  EARLY  FRIENDS  COMPARED  WITH  THE 
POPULAR  THEOLOGY  ON  SALVATION  BY  CHRIST. 

§  1.  It  was  a  doctrine  maintained  both  by  the  early 
Friends  and  their  opponents,  that  "Jesus  Christ  came 
into  the  world  to  save  sinners,"  and  that  this  object 
was  promoted,  by  his  life,  his  teachings  and  his  suf- 
ferings, but  they  differed  in  regard  to  the  mode  in 
which  this  work  is  effected. 

§  2.  The  Church  of  England  in  her  second  Article 
teaches  that,  "Christ,  very  God  and  very  man,  truly 
suffered,  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried,  to  reconcile  his 
Father  to  us,  and  to  be  a  sacrifice,  not  only  for  original 
guilt,  but  also  for  all  actual  sins  of  men."  This  Article 
was  modified  by  the  Westminster  Assembly  by  insert- 
ing after  the  word  "suffered,"  —  "most  grievous  tor- 
ments in  his  soul  from  God."  In  her  eleventh  Article 
revised,  it  was  asserted  that  "We  are  justified,  that  is 
we  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  and  have 
remission  of  sins,  not  for  or  by  our  own  works  or 
deservings,  but  freely  by  his  grace,  only  for  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ's  sake,  his  whole  obe- 
dience  and  satisfaction  being  by  God  imputed  unto  us, 
and  Christ  with  his  righteousness  being  apprehended 
and  rested  on  by  faith  only."1 

The  commonly  received  doctrine  of  Atonement  is, 
"  the  satisfying  of  divine  justice  by  Jesus  Christ  giving 
himself  a  ransom  for  us,  undergoing  the  penalty  due  to 
our  sins,  and  thereby  releasing  us  from  that  punish- 
ment which  God  might  justly  inflict  upon  us."     Im- 

1  Neal,  II.  454-6. 


56  VIEWS    OF    THE    EAKLY    FRIENDS. 

putation  is  defined  to  be,  "  God's  gracious  donation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  believers  and  his 
acceptance  of  their  persons  as  righteous  on  the  account 
thereof.  Their  sins  being  imjynted  to  him,  and  his  obe- 
dience being  imputed  to  them,  they  are  in  virtue  hereof 
both  acquitted  from  guilt  and  accepted  as  righteous 
before  God."  Propitiation  is  defined,  "a  sacrifice 
offered  to  God  to  assuage  Ids  wrath  and  render  him 
propitious."1  And  the  new  covenant  is  said  to  be 
"ratified  afresh  by  the  blood  and  actual  sufferings  of 
Christ."2 

§  3.  It  was  moreover  taught,  as  a  part  of  the  com- 
monly received  doctrine,  that  justification  precede* 
sanctification,  and  is  not  the  result  of  any  righteous- 
ness in  tin.'  person  justified;  but  from  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  imputed  to  sinners  who  believe  in  him. 
Hence  the  assertion  —  "The  person  therefore  that  is 
justified,  is  accepted  without  <tny  cause  in  himself,"' 

§  4.  R"ow  the  questions  to  be  examined  are  th< 
1.  l)idthe  early  Friends  believe  or  teach  the  doctrine 
of  imputative  righteousness?  2.  Did  they  teach  the 
doctrine  of  vicarious  satisfaction,  viz.,  That  Jesua 
Christ,  as  a  substitute,  paid  the  penalty  of  our  sins,  or 
was  punished  tor  man's  transgressions,  to  satisfy  divine 
justice,  or  that  he  died  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God, 
and  reconcile  his  Father  to  us?  3.  Did  they  teach  that 
justification  precedes  sanctification,  or  that  justifica- 
tion may  take  place  without  the  subject  of  it  being 
made  just?  4.  And  finally,  did  they  believe  that  "the 
blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant"  by  which  redemp- 
tion is  effected,  was  the  material  blood  of  the  Messiah 
shed  on  Mount  Calvary? 

1  Buck's  Theological  Dictionary.  •  Craden's  Con. 

8  Buck's  Theological  Dictionary. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  57 

§  5.  In  regard  to  imputative  righteousness.  The 
question  being  asked,  "  whether  a  believer  be  justified 
1 1\  Christ's  righteousness  imputed,  yea  or  no  ?  "  George 
Fox  answered,  "  He  that  believeth  is  born  of  God, 
and  he  that  is  born  of  God  is  justified  by  Christ  alone 
without  i  input  <  it  inn."  1 

Win.  Pcnn,  in  his  "  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken," 
has  one  seetion  with  the  following  heading:,  viz., 
"The  justification  of  impure  persons,  by  an  imputa- 
tive righteousness,  refuted  from  Scripture."  Among 
the  texts  quoted  are  these:  "Keep  thee  far  from  a 
false  matter  and  the  innocent  and  righteous  slay  thou 
not,  for  I  will  not  justify  the  wicked;  "  Ex.  xxiii.  7. 
*•  lie  that  justifieth  the  wicked  and  he  that  condemn- 
ed the  just,  even  they  both  are  an  abomination  to 
the  Lord  ; '  Prov.  xvii.  j~>.  "The  son  shall  not  bear 
the  iniquity  of  his  father;  the  righteousness  of  the 
righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  and  the  wickedness  of 
the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him." 

"From  whence  it  may  be  very  clearly  argued  that 
none  can  he  in  a  state  of  justification  from  the  right- 
eousness performed  by  another  imputed  to  them,  but 
a-  they  are  actually  redeemed  from  the  commission 
of  sin." 

Robert  Barclay,  in  refuting  the  commonly  received 
doctrine,  "That  as  our  sin  is  imputed  to  Christ  who 
had  no  sin,  so  Christ's  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us 
without  our  being  righteous,"  makes  use  of  the  fol- 
lowing argument.  "Though  Christ  bore  our  sins 
and  suffered  for  us,  and  was  among  men  accounted  a 
sinner  and  numbered  among  transgressors ;  yet  that 


1  Saul's  Errand  to  Damascus,  London  ed.  1G54,  p.  12,  and  Works 

ofG.  F.,  III.  595. 

T2 


58  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

God  reputed  him  a  sinner  is  nowhere  proved.  For  it 
is  said,  '  he  was  found  before  him  holy,  harmless  and 
undefined,  neither  was  there  found  any  guile  in  his 
mouth.'  That  we  deserved  these  things  and  much 
more  for  our  sins  which  he  endured  in  obedience  to 
the  Father,  and  according  to  his  counsel,  is  true ;  but 
that  ever  God  reputed  him  a  sinner,  is  denied :  nei« 
ther  did  he  ever  die  that  we  should  be  reputed  right- 
eous;  though  no  more  really  such  than  he  was  a  sinner, 
(as  hereafter  appears).  For  indeed,  if  this  argument 
hold,  it  might  be  stretched  that  length  as  to  become 
very  pleasing  to  wicked  men,  that  love  to  abide  in 
their  sins.  For  if  we  be  made  righteous  as  Christ 
was  made  a  sinner,  merely  by  imputation,  then  as 
there  was  no  sin,  not  in  the  least  in  Christ,  so  it  would 
follow,  that  there  needed  no  more  righteousness,  no 
more  holiness,  no  more  inward  sanctification  in  us 
than  there  was  sin  in  him.  So  then  by  his  'being 
made  sin  for  ue,'  (2  Cor.  v.  21,)  must  be  understood 
his  suffering  for  our  sins  that  we  might  be  made  par- 
takers of  the  grace  purchased  by  him  ;  by  the  workings 
whereof  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him.  For  that  the  apostle  understood  here  a  being 
made  really  righteous,  and  not  merely  a  being  reputed 
such,  appears  by  what  follows,  seeing  in  verses  14, 15, 
16  of  the  following  chapter  he  argues  largely  against 
any  supposed  agreement  of  light  and  darkness,  right- 
eousness and  unrighteousness,  which  must  needs  be 
admitted,  if  men  be  reckoned  ingrafted  in  Christ  and 
real  members  of  him  merely  by  an  imputative  right- 
eousness, wholly  without  them,  while  they  themselves 
are  actually  unrighteous.  And  indeed,  it  may  be 
thought  strange  how  some  men  have  made  this  so 
fundamental  an  article  of  their  faith,  which  is  so  con- 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  59 

trary  to  the  whole  strain  of  the  gospel ;  a  thing  Christ 
in  none  of  his  sermons  and  gracious  speeches  ever 
willed  any  to  rely  upon  ;  always  recommending  to  us 
works  as  instrumental  in  our  justification :  and  the 
more  'tis  to  be  admired  at,  because  that  sentence  or 
term  (so  frequent  in  their  mouths  and  so  often  pressed 
by  them  as  the  very  basis  of  their  hope  and  confi- 
dence), to  wit,  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  is  not 
to  be  found  in  all  the  Bible,  at  least,  as  to  my  obser- 
vation."1 

"Alas!"  says  Isaac.  Pennington,  "how  do  men 
mistake  about  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  about  the 
gospel  righteousness;  and  in  effect,  make  it  but  the 
righteousness  of  the  old  covenant,  performed  in  the 
person  of  another  for  us,  and  imputed  to  us !  Whereas 
it  is  the  righteousness  of  another  covenant,  even  of 
the  new  and  living  covenant,  which  the  Lord  Jesus 
worketh  both  in  us  and  for  us.  Now  whoever  re- 
ceiveth  this  righteousness  from  him,  and  is  clothed 
with  it  by  him,  he  findeth  it  to  be  the  righteousness 
of  the  gospel,  the  new  and  living  righteousness,  the 
true  and  everlasting  righteousness,  both  of  the  father 
and  son,  which  the  souls  of  those  that  truly  believe 
partake  of  in  them  and  with  them."2 

§  6.  Did  the  early  Friends  teach  the  doctrine  of 
vicarious  satisfaction;  viz.,  that  Jesus  Christ,  as  a 
substitute,  paid  the  penalty  of  our  sins,  or  was 
punished  for  man's  transgressions  to  satisfy  divine 
justice,  or  that  he  died  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God, 
and  reconcile  his  Father  to  us  ? 

Geo.  Whitehead,  in  his  work  entitled  "The  Divi- 


1  Barclay's  Apology,  London  ed.  1692,  Prop.  VII.  g  6. 
8  Works  of  I.  P.,  II.  519. 


60  VIEWS    OF    THE    EAKLY    FRIENDS. 

nit j  of  Christ,"  in  answer  to  Thomas  Vincent  and 
others,  states  the  difference  between  Friends'  doctrines 
and  those  of  their  opponents,  as  follows:  — 

"  Query  by  G.  W.  How  is  this  satisfaction  made 
by  Christ  ? " 

"T.  V.  It  depends  upon  him  as  the  second  person 
in  the  Trinity." 

"  Query  by  G.  W.  Does  it  depend  upon  him  as 
man,  or  as  God  and  man  ?" 

"T.  V.  'It  was  necessary  that  the  person  that 
should  make  satisfaction,  should  be  man,  because 
none  but  a  creature  could  suffer.'  But  then  he  adds, 
'It  were  necessary  he  should  be  God,  otherwise  the 
sufferings  and  satisfaction  would  have  been  but 
finite.' " 

"  Query  by  G.  W.  What  then,  were  the  sufferings 
infinite  that  the  wicked  inflicted  upon  the  body  of 
Christ,  seeing  nothing  but  a  creature  could  suffer, 
he  saith,  and  yet  as  a  creature  could  give  no  propor- 
tionable satisfaction  to  infinite  justice.  What  con- 
fusion is  here!  For  as  God  he  could  not  sutler  nor 
die,  as  is  confessed;  but  God  did  strengthen  the 
manhood  to  bear  up  under  such  a  pressure  of  wrath : 
But  where  doth  the  scripture  say,  'that  Christ,  the 
second  person  in  the  Trinity,  did  suffer  under  infi- 
nite wrath,  either  as  God  or  man  or  both  ? ' '  *  *  *  * 
"What  amounts  this  to,  that  God  made  a  satisfac- 
tion to,  and  paid  himself  either  by  inflicting  infinite 
wrath  upon  Christ  as  God  (which  cannot  be),  or  else 
that  he  satisfied  himself  by  the  finite  sufferings  of 
Christ  as  man,  whereas  that  which  was  finite  could 
not  satisfy  infiniteness,  (they  say).  And  as  God-man 
can,  they  say  he  was  the  subject  of  wrath  or  vindic- 
tive justice  (as  their  term  is).      How  these   things 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY   FRIEXDS.  61 

should  be  reconciled,  I  leave  to  the  ingenious  readers 
to  judge."1 

In  an  Appendix  to  his  treatise  entitled  "The  Pres- 
byter's Antidote  Tried,"  Geo.  Whitehead  writes  as 
follows : — 

"  Question.  The  satisfaction,  what  ?  and  in  what 
did  it  consist?  " 

u  Answer.  1.  Kot  rigid  payment  from  Christ  to 
God.  2.  Not  of  the  nature  of  payment  for  all  sins 
past,  present,  and  to  come,  as  stated  by  sin-pleasers. 
3.  Not  Christ's  undergoing  infinite  wrath  or  revenue 
from  his  Father,  for  these  were  never  exacted  nor 
required  of  him.  But  the  satisfaction  was  in  Christ 
as  the  son  of  the  Father's  love,  the  delight  of  his 
soul,  and  as  he  was  a  sacrifice  of  a  sweet-smelling 
savour  to  him.  Both  the  Father  and  the  Son  conde- 
scended in  one  and  the  same  infinite  love  for  man's 
recovery  out  of  sin  and  death,  and  for  his  deliverance 
from  wrath  to  come,  they  being  equally  kind  to  man 
and  equally  angry  at  man's  sin.  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  he  freely  sent  his  only-begotten  Son,  <fec. 
And  in  the  same  love  the  Son  freely  gave  his  life, 
yea,  even  himself,  a  ransom  for  all,  for  a  testimony 
in  due  time." 

"  Question.  "Whether  divine  justice  did  properly 
and  strictly  require  a  full  payment  and  punishment 
upon  Christ,  in  man's  stead,  for  all  the  debt  con- 
tracted and  injury  done  by  fallen  man  ?" 

"Answer.  Ko  ;  Christ's  sufferings  were  not  of  that 
nature  or  intent;  but  as  it  was  by  the  grace  of  God 
that  he  tasted  death  for  every  man,  they  showed 
God's  patience  and  proclaimed  his  mercy,  in  order 


1  The  Divinity  of  Christ,  by  G.  W.     London  ed.  1669,  pp.  45,  46. 
6 


62  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

to  pardon  all  that  return  to  him  from  the  evil  of 
their  ways."1 

In  another  work,  Geo.  "Whitehead  thus  replies  to 
an  opponent:  "That  all  men's  debts  should  he  so 
strictly  paid,  or  such  a  severe  satisfaction  made,  to 
vindicate  justice,  by  Christ  in  their  stead,  which  God 
never  imposed  upon  the  son  of  his  love,  and  that  for 
sins  past,  present,  and  to  come  (as  some  say)  is  in- 
consistent. Besides  the  gross  liberty  this  gives  to 
sin,  how  agrees  it  with  his  teaching  them  to  pray, 
'Forgive  us  our  debts  as  we  forgive  our  debtors?' 
For  what  needed  that,  if  they  be  all  so  strictly  paid 
in  their  stead."2 

Wm.  Penn  says,  "I  can  boldly  challenge  any  per- 
son to  give  me  one  scripture  phrase  which  does  ap- 
proach the  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  (much  less  the 
name,)  considering  to  what  degree  it  is  stretched,  not 
that  we  do  deny,  but  really  confess,  that  Jesus  Christ, 
in  life,  doctrine,  and  death,  fulfilled  his  father's  will, 
and  offered  up  a  most  satisfactory  sacrifice ;  but  not 
to  pay  God  or  help  him  (as  otherwise  being  unable) 
to  save  men."3 

Robert  Barclay,  in  the  5th  and  6th  Propositions 
of  his  Apology,  treats  of  "  Universal  Redemption  by 
Christ."  "God,"  he  says,  "hath  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  hath  given  his  only  son  a  Light,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  shall  be  saved,  who  enlighteneth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world  and  maketh 
manifest  all  things  that  are  reprovable,  and  teacheth 
all  temperance,  righteousness  and  godliness,  and  this 

1  The  Presbyter's  Antidote  Tried,  published  with  Christian  Qua- 
ker.    Phila.  1824,  p.  448. 

2  Lux  Eorta  Est,  ditto,  p.  322. 

8  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken,  Penn's  Select  Works,  p.  22. 


VIEWS   OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  63 

Light  enlighteneth  the  hearts  of  all  for  a  time  in 
order  to  salvation ;  and  this  is  it  which  reproves  the 
sin  of  all  individuals  and  would  ivork  out  the  salva- 
tion of  all  if  not  resisted."  It  is  obvious  from  this 
passage,  that  he  attributes  Redemption  and  Salvation 
to  that  change  of  heart  which  is  wrought  in  man  by 
obedience  to  the  Light.  This  Light  he  says  is  univer- 
sal, "  being  the  purchase  of  his  death  who  tasted  death 
for  every  man." 

In  these  propositions,  Barclay  does  not  maintain 
the  doctrine  of  vicarious  satisfaction,  —  he  does  not 
say  that  the  Messiah  suffered  death  as  a  substitute 
for  sinners  to  satisfy  a  broken  law,  or  to  appease 
divine  wrath.  There  is  however  a  passage  in  the 
argument  connected  with  these  propositions,  (§XV.) 
which  is  erroneously  supposed  by  some  to  bear  that 
construction.  It  reads  as  follows:  "Nevertheless  as 
we  firmly  believe  it  was  necessary  that  Christ  should 
come,  that  by  his  death  and  sufferings  he  might  offer 
up  himself  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  our  sins,  who  his 
own  self  'bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,' 
so  we  believe  that  the  remission  of  sins  which  any 
partake  of,  is  only  in  and  by  virtue  of  that  most 
satisfactory  sacrifice  and  no  otherwise.  For  it  is  by 
the  obedience  of  that  one,  that  the  free  gift  is  come 
upon  all  to  justification." 

The  meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed  may  be 
elucidated  by  reference  to  other  passages  in  the  same 
work,  and  by  bearing  in  mind  the  belief  of  the  early 
Friends,  that  through  the  obedience  and  sufferings 
of  Christ  he  obtained  for  his  Church  Divine  favor  and 
spiritual  gifts,  for  "when  he  ascended  up  on  high 
he  led  captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men ;" 
Eph.  iv.  8.     These  gifts  being  "  for  the  perfecting  of 


64:  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edify- 
ing of  the  body  of  Christ,"  had  a  direct  relation  to 
the  saltation  of  mankind. 

It  is  therefore  not  warrantable,  in  construing  the 
passage  last  quoted  from  Barclay,  to  draw  the  conclu- 
sion that  he  believed  the  sufferings  of  Christ  had  the 
effect  of  appeasing  the  wrath,  or  satisfying  the  justice 
of  God.  On  the  contrary,  he  attributes  both  sanc- 
tification  and  justification  to  the  work  of  Christ  in 
the  obedient  soul.  "As  many,"  he  says,  "as  resist 
not  this  light,  but  receive  the  same,  in  them  is  pro- 
duced a  holy,  pure,  and  spiritual  birth,  bringing  forth 
holiness,  righteousness,  purity,  and  all  those  other 
blessed  fruits  which  are  acceptable  to  God:  by  which 
holy  birth  (to  wit)  Jesus  Christ  formed  within  us 
and  working  his  work  in  us,  are  we  sanctified ;  so  are 
we  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  according  to  the 
apostle's  words,  'But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanc- 
tified, but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.'  " ' 

The  necessity  of  sacrifice  to  obtain  Divine  favor  has, 
from  the  earliest  ages  and  throughout  the  world,  been 
very  generally  felt.  To  enlightened  minds  it  has  beei? 
shown  that  the  sacrifice  acceptable  to  God  is  "a 
broken  spirit  and  a  contrite  heart,"  accompanied  by 
the  offering  up  of  every  impure  affection  and  lust. 
These  being  understood  to  spring  from  the  animal 
nature,  were  typified  by  the  beasts  offered'  in  sacrifice, 
the  flesh  being  consumed,  and  the  blood,  which  is 
the  life,  sprinkled  on  the  altar. 

Such  were  the  offerings  made  by  Abel,  Noah,  and 
the  patriarchs.      They  were  subsequently  ordained 


1  Apology,  Prop.  VII. 


VIEWS    OF   THE    EAELY    FKIENDS.  65 

and  amplified  in  the  ritual  of  Moses,  which  was 
doubtless  adapted  to  the  condition  of  a  people  that 
had  for  centuries  been  held  in  Egyptian  bondage. 
In  the  fulness  of  time  the  Messiah  appeared  to  call 
men  from  outward  types  to  inward  realities,  and  from 
the  letter  to  the  spirit.  "Blotting  out  the  handwrit- 
ing of  ordinances,"  he  "  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nail- 
ing it  to  his  cross."  '  The  idea  of  sacrifice  being 
familiar  to  all,  the  term  was  applied  figuratively,  by 
the  writers  of  the  ]S"ew  Testament,  not  only  to  the 
death  of  the  Messiah  on  the  cross,  but  to  the  martyr- 
dom of  the  saints,  to  the  surrender  of  the  human 
will  and  affections  to  the  Divine  government,  and  to 
the  good  deeds  performed  by  the  believers  in  Christ. 
Thus  Paul  says  of  his  own  expected  martyrdom,  "I 
am  now  ready  to  be  offered."  2  "If  I  be  offered  up- 
on the  sacrifice  and  service  of  your  faith,  I  joy  and 
rejoice  with  you  all."3  He  writes  to  the  brethren, 
"  I  beseech  you  by  the  mercies  of  God  that  ye  pre- 
sent your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  accept- 
able to  God,  which  is  your  reasonable  service."4 
And  in  acknowledging  a  gift  sent  him  by  the  Phi- 
lippians,  he  terms  "it  an  odour  of  a  sweet  smell,  a 
sacrifice  acceptable,  well-pleasing  to  God."5 

The  same  kind  of  figurative  language  is  still  in 
use  ;  we  speak  of  the  reformers  having  sacrificed  their 
lives  for  the  cause  of  truth,  and  of  religious  liberty 
having  been  purchased  by  the  blood  of  the  martyrs; 
but  no  oue  thinks  of  taking  such  expressions  literally. 

§  7.  The  doctrine  of  Reconciliation,  as  taught  in 
the  writings  of  the  early  Friends,  is  strictly  in  accord- 


1  Col.  ii.  14. 

2  2  Tim.  iv.  6. 

3  Phil.  ii.  17. 

4  Rom.  xii.  1. 

6  Phil.  iv.  18. 

6* 

U 

66  VIEWS    OF    THE    EAELY    FEIENDS. 

ance  with  the  Scriptures,  being  a  change  wrought  in 
man  whereby  he  becomes  reconciled  to  God.  There 
can  be  no  change  in  Deity, — he  has  always  loved 
mankind.  "  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world 
unto  himself;"  —  not  reconciling  himself  to  the 
world, — for  there  is  no  such  language  in  the  sacred 
volume.  On  this  point  the  views  of  Isaac  Penning- 
ton are  clear  and  explicit,  viz. : 

"  Question  1.     What  is  reconciliation  ? 

Answer.  It  is  a  bringing  together  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  God  and  man  into  one. 

Quest.  2.     How  is  this  wrought? 

Ans.  By  taking  away  the  enmity  of  man's  nature, 
which  is  therein  against  God,  and  by  planting  him 
into,  and  causing  him  to  grow  up  in,  that  nature  and 
life  which  God  loveth,  whereby  that  is  removed  from 
man  which  God  hateth,  and  which  is  the  cause  of 
separation ;  and  man  brought  into  and  brought  up  in 
that  which  is  the  love  and  delight  of  God's  heart. 

Quest.  3.     By  what  is  this  reconciliation  wrought  ? 

Ans.  By  the  Word  of  God's  power.  That  comes 
forth  from  the  love  of  God  unto  man ;  and  man  being 
gathered  out  of  himself  into  that,  the  evil  seed  is 
thereby  destroyed,  and  the  good  seed  of  the  kingdom 
thereby  cherished,  and  groweth  up  in  its  shadow  and 
nourishment. 

Quest.  4.     How  doth  the  Word  work  this  ? 

Ans.  By  winning  upon  man,  and  gathering  him 
into  its  light,  out  of  man's  own  darkness,  exercising 
man  various  ways  to  empty  him  of  himself,  and  make 
him  weak  in  himself,  and  putting  forth  its  own  strength 
in  and  for  man,  as  it  hath  emptied  and  weakened  him 
in  himself."1 

1  Works  of  I.  Pennington,  I.  609. 


VIEWS    OF   THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  67 

§  8.  Did  the  early  Friends  teach  that  Justification 
precedes  Sanctification,  or  that  Justification  may  take 
place  without  the  subject  of  it  being  made  just? 

Geo.  Fox  has  expressed  his  view  on  this  point  in 
unmistakable  language,  viz. :  "  They  that  are  not 
complete  in  sanctification  are  not  complete  in  justifi- 
cation, for  they  are  one,  they  that  are  complete  in  the 
one  are  complete  in  the  other;  and  so  far  as  a  man 
is  sanctified,  so  far  he  is  justified,  and  no  farther;  for 
the  same  that  sanctifies  a  man  justifies  him  ;  for  the 
same  that  is  his  sanctification  is  his  justification,  and 
his  wisdom,  and  his  redemption.  He  that  knows  one 
of  them,  knows  all:  he  that  cloth  not  feel  one  of 
them,  feels  none  of  them  at  all,  for  they  are  all  one."  * 

Richard  Claridge,  in  a  conference  with  a  Baptist, 
quoted  the  text,  1  Cor.  vi.  11,  "But  ye  are  washed, 
but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified,  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  spirit  of  our  God;" 
and  said,  that  it  was  evident  by  the  Apostle's  words 
that  he  did  not  lead  us  to  an  outward  righteousness 
only  for  our  justification,  but  to  an  inward  righteous- 
ness as  being  the  immediate  cause  thereof.  For  if 
we  attend  to  the  order  of  the  Apostle's  testimony,  we 
must  be  washed  and  sanctified  before  we  can  be  jus- 
tified. And  if  we  come  to  witness  the  efficacious 
work  of  the  spirit  of  Christ,  in  our  cleansing  and 
sanctification,  then  we  shall  know  ourselves  to  be  in 
a  state  of  justification,  and  not  till  then.  For  though 
Christ  be  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world,  yet  no  man  can  comfortably  apply  him  as  such 
to  his  own  soul,  but  as  he  first  experiences  the  sanc- 
tifying work  of  the  Spirit."  2 

1  Great  Mystery,  284.     Works  of  G.  F.  III.  450. 

2  Works  of  R.  Claridge,  London  ed.  1726,  p.  78. 


68  VIEWS    OF    THE    EAELY    FRIENDS. 

Robert  Barclay,  after  quoting  the  same  text,  (1  Cor. 
vi.  11,)  proceeds  to  show  that  the  term  justified,  as 
there  applied,  "must  needs  be,  a  being  really  made 
just,  and  not  a  being  merely  imputed  such ;  else 
sanctified  and  washed  might  be  reputed  a  being 
esteemed  so,  and  not  a  being  really  so :  and  then  it 
overturns  the  whole  intent  of  the  context.  For  the 
Apostle  showing  them  in  the  preceding  verses,  how 
the  unrighteous  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  descending  to  the  several  species  of  wickedness, 
subsumes,  that  they  were  sometimes  such,  but  now 
are  not  any  more  such.  "Wherefore,  as  they  are  now 
washed  and  sanctified,  so  are  they  justified." 

It  is  further  shown  by  Barclay,  that  the  proper  and 
genuine  interpretation  of  justified  is  being  made  just; 
the  word  is  "a  composition  of  the  verb  facio,  and  the 
adjective  Justus,  which  is  nothing  else  than  thus:  jus- 
tijico,  i.  e.  justum  facio,  to  make  just."  l 

§  9.  Did  they  believe  or  teach  that  the  "  blood  of 
the  everlasting  covenant,"  by  which  redemption  is 
effected,  was  the  material  blood  of  the  Messiah  shed 
on  Mount  Calvary? 

George  Fox  wrote  a  tract,  entitled  "A  Testimony 
concerning  the  Blood  of  the  Old  Covenant  and  the 
Blood  of  the  New  Covenant,"  from  which  the  follow- 
ing passages  are  quoted :  "As  Moses  in  the  old  cove- 
nant sprinkied  the  people  with  the  blood,  the  life  of 
beasts ;  so  Christ  our  high  priest  sprinkles  the  hearts 
and  consciences  of  his  people,  in  the  new  covenant, 
with  his  blood,  his  life,  'from  their  dead  works  that 
they  may  serve  the  living  God  in  newness  of  life.' 
*  *  *  *  So  the  blood  of  the  old  covenant  was  the 


1  Apology,  Prop.  VII.  \  7. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  69 

life  of  the  beasts  and  other  creatures :  and  the  blood 
of  the  new  covenant  is  the  life  of  Christ  Jesus,  who 
saith, '  except  ye  eat  my  flesh  and  drink  my  blood,  ye 
have  no  life  in  you.'  So  the  blood  of  the  new  cove- 
nant is  not  according  to  the  old,  and  so  with  this 
blood  of  the  new  covenant  must  every  one  feel  their 
hearts  sprinkled  if  they  have  life  ;  and  in  this  new 
covenant  they  shall  all  know  the  Lord,  &c.  And  by 
this  blood  of  Jesus,  his  life  in  the  new  covenant,  they 
are  justified,  in  whom  we  have  redemption  and  the 
forgiveness  of  sins ;  and  Christ  hath  purchased  his 
Church  with  his  own  blood,  his  life,  and  their  faith 
cloth  stand  in  his  blood  which  is  the  life  of  the  Lamb. 
Therefore  the  Apostle  saith,  'If  ye  walk  in  the  light 
as  he  is  in  the  light,  then  ye  have  fellowship  one  with 
another,  and  the  blood  of  Christ  Jesus,  his  Son, 
cleanseth  from  all  sin.' "  x  This  testimony  is  in  accord- 
ance with  that  of  the  Apostle  John,  viz.,  "  God  hath 
given  to  us  eternal  life ;  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son. 
He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life,  and  he  that  hath  not 
the  Son  hath  not  life."  *  *  *  *  "  In  him  was  life,  and 
the  life  was  the  light  of  men."2 

Isaac  Pennington  has  expressed  his  sentiment  on 
this  point  in  the  following  passage  :  — 

"  Question  1.    What  is  redemption  ? 

"  Answer.  It  is  the  purchasing  of  the  vessel  out  of 
the  captivity  and  misery  of  death,  into  the  liberty  and 
blessedness  of  divine  life,  sown,  revealed,  grown  up 
and  perfected  in  the  heart. 

"  Quest.  2.    Who  is  the  Redeemer? 

"  Ans.  The  Son  of  God,  the  child  of  God's  beget- 


1  Works  of  G.  F.,  V.  363-4  ;  Doctrinals,  644-5. 
2 1  John  v.  11,  12,  and  John  i.  4. 

U2 


70  VIEWS    OF   THE    EARLY   FRIEND3. 

ting,  the  divine  image  who  naturally  believes  and 
fulfils  the  will  of  the  Father,  in  every  vessel  which 
it  hath  prepared. 

"  Quest.  3.     By  what  doth  he  redeem  ? 

"  Ans.  By  his  blood;  by  his  life  ;  by  his  power;  by 
his  nature  sown  in  the  vessel,  and  transforming  the 
vessel  into  its  own  likeness.  Yea,  this  is  indeed  re- 
demption, when  the  creature  is  changed  into  and 
brought  forth  in  the  image,  power,  nature,  virtue  and 
divine  life  of  him  that  redeem eth  ;  and  the  old  con- 
trary image  perfectly  blotted  out  by  the  presence 
and  indwelling  of  the  new.  This  is  perfect  redemp- 
tion, the  least  measure  whereof  is  redemption  in  a 
decree."  l 

Robert  Barclay,  in  his  work  entitled  "Truth  cleared 
of  Calumnies,"  replies  to  an  opponent  as  follows,  viz. : 

"  Whereas  thou  sayest,  '  Is  not  the  application  of 
Christ's  blood  and  sufferings  necessary  to  them  that 
would  profit  and  get  good  thereby;  for  though  the 
blood  of  Christ  be  a  healing  plaster,  yet  the  plaster 
must  be  applied  ere  the  sore  can  be  healed.  jSTow 
what  application  can  the  soul  make  of  Christ's  blood, 
who  knows  no  such  thing?  The  blood  of  Christ  is 
applied  by  faith,  but  true  faith  is  not  a  blind  faith.' 

"Answer.  It  is  granted:  but  this  blood  is  known 
and  felt  within,  to  wash  and  purge  the  conscience ; 
for  Christ,  as  he  is  within  is  not  without  his  blood, 
which  is  spiritual,  even  the  pure  blood  of  the  vine ;  and 
is  that  wine  of  the  kingdom  which  is  inwardly  felt  to 
wash  and  to  refresh,  which  he  gives  to  them  who 
know  not  distinctly  the  outward  shedding  of  the  blood 
as  it  was  many  hundred  years  ago,  and  which  many 

1  Pennington's  Works,  I.  610. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  71 

are  ignorant  of  who  have  heard  much  of  the  outward 
shedding  of  his  blood,  but  know  not  the  blood  as  shed 
and  poured  forth  in  them,  to  sprinkle  their  consciences 
from  dead  works  ?  for  it  is  a  mystery  sealed  up  from 
all  who  stand  in  opposition  to  his  light  within.  But 
there  mark  thy  own  words,  '  the  plaster  must  be 
applied,  ere  the  sore  can  be  healed.'  Must  not  the 
saving  grace  be  applied  ere  the  soul  can  be  converted 
or  healed?"1 

It  is  observed  by  Wm.  Penn,  that  "  one  outward 
thing  cannot  be  the  proper  figure  or  representative  of 
another.  Nor  is  it  the  way  of  holy  Scripture  so  to 
teach  us.  The  outward  Lamb  shows  forth  the  inward 
Lamb  ;  the  Jew  outward  the  Jew  inward."  2 

In  accordance  with  this  view,  Geo.  "Whitehead  asks, 
"Did  not  the  killing  and  sacrificing  of  bulls,  goats 
and  heifers  typify  or  figure  forth  the  killing  and 
destroying  that  corrupt,  beastly  nature  and  enmity  in 
man,  which  is  for  death  and  destruction,  and  of  which 
those  beasts  were  as  a  lively  emblem  ?  "  3 

§  10.  Having  shown  by  the  foregoing  extracts  from 
the  writings  of  the  most  prominent  among  the  early 
Friends,  that  they  did  not  believe  or  teach  some  of 
the  doctrines  then  deemed  essential  by  the  churches 
called  orthodox ;  it  is  proper  now  to  demonstrate  that 
they  did  believe  and  teach  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
by  Christ,  as  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  healing  of  the  soul,  as  suggested  by  Barclay,  is 
one  of  the  most  appropriate  figures  to  illustrate  the 
nature  of  salvation;  for  as  sin  is  a  malady  of  the 
soul  that  will  cause  spiritual  death,  so  salvation  is  the 


Barclay's  Works,  p.  10.  *    2  Select  Works,  p.  260. 

Presbyter's  Antidote  Tried,  Appendix. 


72  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

health  of  the  soul,  and  will  secure  eternal  life.  As 
the  Messiah,  through  the  divine  power  that  dwelt  in 
him,  wrought  many  great  miracles,  healing  the  sick 
and  cleansing  the  lepers,  causing  the  blind  to  see  and 
the  deaf  to  hear,  and  even  restoring  the  dead  to  life ; 
so  the  same  Divine  Power,  or  Spirit  of  Christ,  now 
heals  the  maladies  of  the  soul,  cleanses  it  from  pollu- 
tion, enables  it  to  see  his  light  and  to  hear  his  word, 
and  thus  restores  it  from  death  to  life. 

The  redemption  that  is  wrought  for  us  by  Christ 
as  a  spirit  of  light  and  life  in  the  soul,  and  the  work 
of  reconciliation  that  was  effected  by  him  while  in 
that  "body  prepared"  in  which  he  came  to  do  his 
Father's  will,  arc  explained  at  large  m  the  17th  and 
18th  chapters  of  Wm.  Perm's  "Christian  Quaker." 
In  order  to  present  both  aspects  of  the  subject  as 
treated  by  him,  the  following  selections  may  suffice. 

"As  at  anv  time  disobedient  men  have  hearkened 
to  the  still  small  voice  of  the  Word,  that  messenger 
of  God  in  their  hearts,  to  be  affected  and  convinced 
by  it,  as  it  brings  reproof  for  sin,  which  is  but  a 
fatherly  chastisement;  so  upon  true  broken u ess  of 
soul  and  contrition  of  spirit,  that  very  same  Principle 
and  word  of  life  in  man,  has  mediated  and  atoned,  and 
God  has  been  propitious,  lifting  up  the  light  of  his 
countenance,  and  replenishing  such  humble  penitents 
with  divine  consolations.  So  that  still  the  same 
Christ,  Word-God,  who  has  lighted  all  men,  is  by  sin 
grieved  and  burdened,  and  bears  the  iniquities  of  such 
as  so  sin  and  reject  his  benefits.  But  as  any  hear  his 
knocks  and  let  him  into  their  hearts,  he  first  wounds 
and  then  heals.  Afterwards  he  atones,  mediates  and 
reinstates  man  in  the  h<^y  image  he  is  fallen  from  by 
sin.     Behold  this  is  the  state  of  restitution  !  and  this 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  73 

in  some  measure  was  witnessed  by  the  holy  patriarchs, 
prophets  and  servants  of  God  in  old  time,  to  whom 
Christ  was  substantially  the  same  Saviour  and  seed  bruis- 
ing the  serpent's  head  that  he  is  now  to  us,  what  dif- 
ference soever  there  may  be  in  point  of  manifestation. 
"But,  notwithstanding,  it  was  the  same  light  and 
life  with  that  which  afterwards  clothed  itself  with 
that  outward  body,  which  did  in  measure  inwardly 
appear  for  the  salvation  of  the  souls  of  men,  yet,  as 
I  have  often  said,  never  did  that  Diflne  Life  so  emi- 
nently show  forth  itself,  as  in  that  sanctified  and  pre- 
pared body."  *  *  *  *  "Consider  what  I  say  with  this 
qualification,  that  ultimately  and  chiefly,  not  Wholly 
and  exclusively,  the  Divine  Life  in  that  body  was  the 
Redeemer.  For  the  sufferings  of  that  holy  body  of 
Jesus  had  an  engaging  and  procuring  virtue  in  them, 
though  the  Divine  Life  was  that  fountain  from  whence 
originally  it  came.  And  as  the  Life  declared  and 
preached  forth  itself  through  that  holy  body,  so 
those  who  then  came  to  the  benefit  procured  by  the 
Divine  Life,  could  only  do  it  through  an  hearty  con- 
fession to  it  a?  appearing  in  that  body,  and  that  from 
a  sense  first  given  by  a  measure  of  the  same  in  them- 
selves. This  is  the  main  import  of  those  places, 
'whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,'  and 
4in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  faith  in  his 
blood.'  Bom.  iii.  25.  For  who  is  this  He,  whom 
God  hath  set  forth,  and  in  whom  is  redemption  ? 
Certainly,  the  same  He  that  was  before  Abraham,  the 
rock  of  the  Fathers,  that  cried:  'Lo  I  come  to  do 
thy  will,  0  God;  a  body  hast  thou  prepared  me;' 
which  was  long  before  the  body  was  conceived  and 
born."1 

1  Select  Works  of  W.  Penn,  pp.  262,  266. 
IV  — 7 


74  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

These  extracts  from  the  works  of  Barclay,  Penn, 
and  Pennington,  the  ablest  authors  among  the  early 
Friends,  might,  if  it  were  deemed  needful,  be  cor- 
roborated by  many  passages  from  the  writings  of 
other  Friends  contemporary  with  them. 

§  11.  In  treating  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  there 
is,  perhaps,  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament  so  frequently 
quoted  as  the  53d  chapter  of  Isaiah.  It  is  referred 
to  by  the  evangelist  Matthew  in  the  following  re- 
markable passage,  viz  :  "  When  the  even  was  come, 
they  brought  unto  him  many  that  were  possessed 
with  devils;  and  he  cast  out  the  spirits  with  his  word, 
and  healed  all  that  were  sick:  that  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  spoken  by  Esaias,  the  prophet,  saying, 
Himself  took  our  infirmities  and  bare  our  sick- 
nesses." In  considering  this  passage,  the  query 
arises,  how  did  he  take  their  infirmities  and  bear 
their  sicknesses?  Assuredly  not  by  becoming  him- 
self infirm  and  sick,  nor  were  they  healed  by  having 
his  health  imputed  to  them  ;  but  "he  cast  them  out 
by  his  word,"  which  was  "  the  power  of  God  and  the 
wisdom  of  God."  In  like  manner  the  same  divine 
Word,  or  Spirit  of  Christ,  still  removes  our  iniqui- 
ties ;  not  by  imputation,  but  by  healing  our  spiritual 
diseases,  if  we  have  faith  in  him  and  obey  his  law. 

It  is  admitted,  even  by  trinitarian  writers,  that 
"  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  as  far  as  relates  to  sin, 
is  nothing  more  than  the  doctrine  of  reconciliation. 
And  indeed,  in  a  sense  agreeable  to  this,  that  of 
bringing  into  a  state  of  concord  and  reconciliation, 
the  word  atonement  itself  had  been  originally  used 
by  our  old  English  writers,  with  whom,  according 
to  Junius,  Skinner,  and  Johnson,  it  was  written  at- 
one-ment;    signifying   to   be    at-one   or  to  come  to 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  75 

an  agreement."1  Fow,  as  "the  carnal  mind  is 
enmity  against  God,"  and  as  no  change  can  take 
place  in  Deity,  the  change  must' be  wrought  in  man, 
in  order  that  reconciliation  may  be  effected.  Hence 
the  peculiar  force  and  propriety  of  the  expression 
used  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  ""We  are  ambassadors  for 
Christ,  as  though  God  did  beseech  you  by  us;  we 
pray  you  in  Christ's  stead  be  ye  reconciled  to  God." 
Tins  language  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Most  High 
through  his  prophet  Ezekiel,  "I  have  no  pleasure  in 
the  death  of  the  wicked  ;  but  that  the  wicked  turn 
from  his  way  and  live:  turn  ye,  turn  ye,  from  your 
evil  ways;  for  why  will  ye  die,  0  house  of  Israel  ?" 

It  is  evident  that  there  is  nothing  implacable  in 
the  character  of  the  Deity;  the  mission  of  Christ 
was  an  evidence  of  his  love  and  mercy  to  mankind. 
"God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-be- 
gotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life." 

The  object  of  his  mission  is  thus  stated  by  him- 
self: "To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause 
came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness 
unto  the  truth."2  He  could  not  bear  witness  to  the 
truth  among  that  perverse  and  wicked  people  with- 
out suffering  for  it.  Foreseeing  the  result,  he  pro- 
phesied of  his  death  and  resurrection, — and  willingly 
laid  down  his  life  as  a  testimony  for  the  truth,  in 
oider  to  promote  the  salvation  of  the  wTorld.  His 
sufferings  were  both  mental  and  corporeal,  and  being 
endured  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  his  Father,  (for 
he  said,  not  my  will  but  thine  be  done,)  the  sacrifice 
thus  made  was  an  offering  acceptable  to  God,  and  an 

1  Magee  on  Atonement,  pp.  184,  186.  2  John  xviii.  37. 


76  VIEWS   OF   THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

evidence  to  man  that  "He  who  spared  not  his  own 
son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he 
not  with  him  also  freely  give  us  all  tilings?"1  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  his  agony  in  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane,  as  well  as  his  mental  Bufferings  on 
Mount  Calvary,  when  1  cried  out,  "My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  were  occasioned 
by  the  deep  sense  he  had  of  the  sins  of  mankind, 
the  burden  of  which  lay  upon  him  and  induced  him 
to  say,  "My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto 
death."  He  was  "baptized  into  death,"  he  entered 
into  sympathy  and  suffering  for  a  fallen  world;  "he 
humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross."  Before  his  crucifixion 
it  was  said,  "the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given  be- 
cause Jesus  was  not  }*et  glorified;"  that  is,  it  was 
not  poured  forth  so  abundantly  as  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  But  after  his  resurrection,  "He  ascended 
up  on  high,  he  led  captivity  captive  and  gave  gifts 
unto  men."  "Therefore,"  said  Peter,  "being  by  the 
right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the 
Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed 
forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  It  may 
therefore  be  truly  said  he  is  our  "  propitiation,"  "the 
mediator  of  the  new  covenant,"  through  whom  favor 
is  received. 

The  personal  ministry  of  Christ,  his  sublime  doc- 
trines, pure  life,  and  wonderful  miracles,  made,  com- 
paratively, few  converts;  but  when  he  laid  down  his 
lite  for  the  sheep,  and  sealed  his  testimony  with  his 
blood,  the  impression  was  far  deeper,  and  then  the 
apostles  going  forth  in   his   name  and  power,  were 

1  Rom.  viii.  32. 


VIEWS    OF    THE   EAELY    FRIENDS.  77 

instrumental  in  gathering  many  thousands  to  his 
fold.  They  preached  not  themselves,  "  but  Christ 
Jesus,  the  Lord,"  and  to  the  gift  of  grace  through  him, 
they  attributed  the  wonderful  success  of  their  min- 
istry. Thus  we  see  that  the  effect  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ings upon  gn-at  numbers  in  that  day,  was  to  remove 
the  enmity  from  their  hearts,  and  by  this  means 
reconcile  them  to  God;  and  the  same  result  has  been 
witnessed  to  some  extent  in  every  age  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  But  it  is  the  life  or  power  of  Christ 
operating  in  the  soul,  that  saves  from  sin,  and  hence 
the  Apostle  Paul  says,  "If  when  we  were  enemies  we 
were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son, 
much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by 
his  life."1  For  in  him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the 
light  of  men.2 

§  12.  They  who  would  reign  with  Christ  must  be 
willing  to  suffer  with  him.  The  Apostle  Paul  wrote 
to  the  Colossians  :  "I  now  rejoice  in  my  sufferings 
for  you,  and  till  up  that  which  is  behind  of  the  afflic- 
tions of  Christ,  for  his  body's  sake  which  is  the 
Church.''  The  true  ministers  of  the  Gospel  must,  at 
time-,  be  baptized  into  sympathy  and  suffering  for 
the  condition  of  the  people,  in  order  that  they  may 
minister  to  their  wants;  for  the  whole  Church  is  repre- 
sented as  one  body,  and,  "  whether  one  member 
suffer,  all  the  members  suffer  with  it,  or  one  member 
be  honored,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it." 

An  instance  of  this  spiritual  suffering  is  mentioned 
in  the  Journal  of  G.  Fox,  who,  being  asked  by  Pri 

vens,  "Why  Chrisl  cried  out  upon  the  cross,  'My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? '  and  why 

1  Rom.  v.  10.  2  John  i.  4. 

7*  IV  — V 


78  VIEWS    OF    THE   EARLY   FRIENDS. 

he  said,  'If  it  be  possible  let  this  cup  pass  from  me,' " 
replied  as  follows :  "  At  that  time  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world  were  upon  him,  and  their  iniquities  and 
transgressions,  with  which  he  was  wounded,  which 
he  was  to  bear  and  be  an  offering  for,  as  he  was  man, 
but  died  not  as  he  was  God ;  so  in  that  he  died  for 
all  men,  tasting  death  for  every  man,  he  was  an  offer- 
ing for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  This  I  spoke 
being  at  that  time  in  a  measure  sensible  of  Christ's 
sufferings  and  what  he  went  through."  Thus  it  ap- 
pears that  George  Fox  was  brought  into  fellowship 
with  Christ  in  his  sufferings,  even  as  Paul  was  enabled 
to  know  him  and  "  the  power  of  his  resurrection  and 
the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  being  made  conform- 
able unto  his  death."1 

§  13.  In  the  letter  of  Geo.  Fox  and  others  to  the 
Governor  and  Council  of  Barbadoes,  a  full  testimony 
is  borne  to  the  divinity  of  Christ,  his  miraculous  con- 
ception, his  sufferings,  resurrection,  and  mediation. 
The  following  extract  may  suffice,  viz. :  "  This  Jesus 
who  was  the  foundation  of  the  holy  prophets  and 
apostles  is  our  foundation,  and  we  do  believe  that  there 
is  no  other  foundation  to  be  laid,  but  that  which  is 
laid,  even  Christ  Jesus,  who,  we  believe,  '  tasted 
death  for  every  man  and  shed  his  blood  for  all  men, 
and  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours 
only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Ac- 
cording as  John  the  Baptist  testified  of  him,  when 
he  said,  '  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away 
the  sins  of  the  world.'"  *  *  *  *  "He  it  is  that  is 
now  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that 
we  may  know  him  that  is  true ;  and  he  rules  in  our 

1  Phil.  iii.  10. 


VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS.  79 

hearts  by  his  law  of  love  and  of  life,  and  makes  us 
free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death,  and  we  have 
no  life  but  by  him,  for  he  is  the  quickening  Spirit, 
the  Second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven:  by  whose 
blood  we  are  cleansed,  and  our  consciences  sprinkled 
from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God."  ■ 

■  In  one  of  his  tracts,  Geo.  Fox  writes  as  follows : 
"The  blood  of  Christ  which  satisfies  the  Father, 
which  the  saints  drink,  and  his  flesh  which  they  eat, 
which  in  so  doing  they  have  life,  is  that  which  the 
world  stumble  at;  which  who  drinks  lives  forever. 
And  the  Apostle  preached  the  word  of  faith  in  their 
hearts  and  in  their  mouths,  and  the  word  reconciles 
to  the  Father,  and  hammers  down,  and  cuts  down, 
and  burns  up  that  which  separates  from  the  Father; 
and  over  it  gives  victory."  *  *  *  *  "Whosoever 
hath  not  Christ  within,  is  a  reprobate,  and  whoso- 
ever hath  Christ  within,  hath  the  righteousness.2 
Now  Christ  that  suffered,  Christ  that  was  offered 
up,  is  manifest  within,  and  the  saints  are  of  his 
flesh  and  of  his  bone,  and  eat  his  flesh  and  drink 
his  blood,  and  not  another.  The  Christ  that  ended 
the  priesthood,  ended  the  offering,  ended  the  temple, 
ended  the  law,  and  the  first  covenant,  the  seed  of 
God,  Christ  Jesus,  this  is  manifest  within ;  he  that 
hath  him  hath  life,  justification,  sanctification,  and 
redemption."  *  *  *  *  "And  none  lift  up  the  Son  of 
God,  as  the  serpent  was  lifted  up  in  the  wilderness, 
but  as  every  one  is  in  the  light,  that  the  Son  of  God 
hath  enlightened  him  withal,  and  then  they  know 

1  See  letter  of  G.  Fox  to  Gov.  of  Barbadoes,  Appendix  to  Vol. 
II.  of  this  History. 

2  "  He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life,  and  he  that  hath  not  the 
Son  hath  not  life."  1  John  v.  12. 


80  VIEWS    OF    THE    EARLY    FRIENDS. 

him  that  draws  all  men  after  him."  l  In  this  passage 
and  in  many  others  that  might  be  adduced  from  the 
writings  of  G.  Fox,  he  explains  what  he  means  by 
that  blood  of  Christ,  which  "satisfieth  the  Father," 
and  "reconciles  to  the  Father,"  even  that  blood  which 
the  saints  drink, — that  life  or  Spirit  of  Christ  which 
renovates  the  soul. 

In  accordance  with  this  view  Robert  Barclay  writes 
"  The  body  then  of  Christ,  which  believers  partake 
of,  is  spiritual  and  not  carnal,  and  his  blood,  which 
they  drink  of,  is  pure  and  heavenly,  and  not  human 
or  elementary." 

In  conclusion,  it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  the 
early  Friends  believed  and  taught  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine of  salvation  by  Christ,  as  a  work  effected  by 
divine  power  in  the  humble  obedient  soul ;  but  while 
they  relied  upon  "the  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in 
Christ  Jesus,"  which  made  them  "free  from  the  law 
of  sin  and  death,"  they  failed  not  to  acknowledge 
their  gratitude  to  Him,  "who  gave  himself  for  us 
that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify 
unto  himself  a  peculiar  people  zealous  of  good 
works." 


CHAPTER   VI. 


HISTORICAL  REVIEW  OF   FRIENDS'   DOCTRINES  FROM 

1690  TO  1814. 

Having  shown  what  were  the  doctrines  generally 
held  by  Friends  in  the  time  of  Geo.  Fox,  the  next 
point  for  consideration,  is  the  inquiry,  whether  any 

1  Works  of  G.  Fox,  III.  227  228.     Great  Mystery,  131. 


1693.]  KEITHIAN    CONTROVERSY.  81 

changes  have  subsequently  taken  place  in  the  religious 
views  of  the  Society  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  or 
in  America. 

Soon  after  the  death  of  Fox,  a  controversy  sprung 
up  in  America  caused  by  the  disaffection  of  George 
Keith  and  the  charges  of  unsoundness  in  doctrine 
which  he  brought  against  the  Society.  This  contro- 
versy having  been  treated  of  in  a  preceding  chapter, 
requires  but  a  brief  notice  here.1 

The  Keithians  assumed  the  name  of  Christian 
Quakers,  adopted  a  confession  of  faith,  and  issued  a 
testimony  against  their  former  brethren,  charging 
them  with  heresy.  The  chief  points  of  difference 
between  the  views  of  George  Keith  and  those  of 
Friends,  at  the  time  of  his  separation,  were,  that  he 
held  the  doctrines  of  original  sin,  the  Trinity,  and 
imputative  righteousness.2  He  afterwards  embraced 
the  other  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
was  ordained  a  minister  of  that  body. 

In  the  year  1693,  thirty-one  Friends  in  England, 
among  whom  was  George  Whitehead,  caused  the 
following  confession  of  faith  to  be  presented  to 
Parliament,  in  order  to  clear  the  Society  of  aspersions 
cast  upon  it  by  "Francis  Bugg,  an  envious  apostate."' 

"Be  it  known  to  all,  that  we  sincerely  believe  and 
confess,  I.  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  was  born  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,  is  the  true  Messiah,  the  very  Christ, 
the  son  of  the  living  God,  to  whom  all^the  prophets 
gave  witness:  and  that  we  do  highly  value  his  death, 
sufferings,  works,  offices,  and  merits,  for  the  redemp- 


1  See  History,  Vol.  III.  chap.  3. 

2  See,  examination  of  Keith's  doctrines,  Hist,  of  Fds.,  Vol.  III. 
chap.  3. 

3  Sewel,  II.  357. 

V2 


82  CONFESSION"    OF    FAITH.  [1694. 

tion  of  mankind,  together  with,  his  laws,  doctrine, 
and  ministry. 

II.  That  this  very  Christ  of  God,  who  is  the  Lamb 
of  God  that  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  was 
slain,  was  dead,  and  is  alive,  and  lives  forever  in  his 
divine,  eternal  glory,  dominion  and  power  with  the 
Father. 

III.  That  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  are  of  divine  authority,  as  being  given  by 
the  inspiration  of  God. 

IV.  And  that  magistracy  or  civil  government  is 
God's  ordinance,  the  good  ends  thereof  being  for  the 
punishment  of  evil-doers,  and  praise  of  them  that 
do  well." 

The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends  held  in  London 
in  1694,  issued  the  following  advice  to  the  subor- 
dinate meetings  :  "If  there  be  any  such  gross  errors, 
false  doctrines,  or  mistakes  held  by  any  professing 
truth,  as  are  either  against  the  validity  of  Christ's 
sufferings,  blood,  resurrection,  ascension,  or  glory  in 
the  heavens,  according  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the 
Scriptures;  or  any  ways  tending  to  the  denial  of  the 
heavenly  man  Christ;  such  persons  ought  to  be  dil- 
igently instructed  and  admonished  by  faithful  Friends 
and  not  to  be  exposed  by  any  to  public  reproach ; 
and  when  the  error  proceeds  from  ignorance  and 
darkness  of  their  understanding,  they  ought  the 
more  meekly  and  gently  to  be  informed  ;  but  if  they 
shall  wilfully  persist  in  error  in  point  of  faith,  after 
being  duly  informed,  then  such  to  be  further  dealt 
with  according  to  gospel  order,  that  the  truth,  church, 
or  body  of  Christ  may  not  suffer  by  any  parti- 
cular pretended  member  that  is  so  corrupt."1     This 

1  Extracts  from  Minutes  and  Advices,  &c.    London,  1802,  p.  50. 


1726.]   ADVICES    OF    PHILA.    YEARLY    MEETING. 


83 


minute  was  incorporated  into  the  rules  of  discipline 
of  London  Yearly  Meeting. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  for  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Jersey,  in  the  year  1694,  and  again  in  1704,  issued 
"A  General  Testimony"  addressed  to  its  members, 
which  contained  a  declaration  of  faith  in  relation  to 
several  points  of  doctrine  expressed  entirely  in  scrip- 
ture language.1 

In  1732,  the  same  Yearly  Meeting  issued  the  follow- 
ing advice:  "We  tenderly  and  earnestly  advise  and 
exhort  all  parents  and  heads  of  families,  that  they 
endeavor  to  instruct  their  children  and  families  in 
the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  Christian  religion, 
as  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and  that  they 
incite  them  to  the  diligent  reading  of  those  excellent 
writings,  which  plainly  set  forth  the  miraculous  con- 
ception, birth,  holy  life,  wonderful  works,  blessed 
example,  meritorious  death,  and  glorious  resurrec- 
tion, ascension  and  mediation,  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ;  and  to  educate  their  children 
in  the  belief  of  those  important  truths,  as  well  as  in 
the  belief  of  the  inward  manifestation  and  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  their  own  minds,  that  they 
may  reap  the  benefit  and  advantage  thereof,  for  their 
own  peace  and  everlasting  happiness;  which  is  infin- 
itely preferable  to  all  other  considerations."2 

In  the  year  1726,  Richard  Claridge  published  a 
treatise  entitled,  "An  Essay  on  xhe  Doctrine  of 
Christ's  Satisfaction  for  the  Sins  of  Mankind,  where- 
in Wm.  Penn's  book  called  the  '  Sandy  Foundation 
Shaken,'  is  defended  against  the  exceptions  of 
Francis  Bugg;  and  the  vulgar  doctrine  of  Satisfac- 

1  MS.  records.  a  Book  of  Discipline. 


84  VIEWS  OF    R.   CLARIDGE.  [1726. 

tion  farther  refuted  from  the  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  the  concurrent  opinions  of  many, 
both  ancient  and  modern  writers." 

In  this  work  he  says:  "  As  we  distinguish  between 
a  Scripture  Trinity,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
which  we  unfeignedly  believe;  and  that  humanly  de- 
vised Trinity  of  three  distinct  and  separate  persons, 
which  we  receive  not,  because  the  Holy  Scriptures 
make  no  mention  of  it:  so  we  distinguish  between 
Scripture  redemption  and  the  vulgar  doctrine  of 
Satisfaction.  The  first  we  receive,  the  second  we 
reject." 

The  vulgar,  or  commonly  received,  doctrine  of 
Satisfaction  he  thus  defines,  in  the  words  of  William 
Penn:  "That  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  remit  or 
forgive  sin,  without  a  plenary  Satisfaction,  fee.," 
which,  he  says,  "is  not  to  be  found  in  Scripture,  so  it 
is  disallowed  of  by  many,  both  ancient  and  modern 
writers."1  *  *  *  *  "As  it  was,"  continues  R.  Clar- 
idge,  "the  main  design  of  Christ's  life,  doctrine  and 
miracles  to  call  men  to  repentance,  faith,  and  obedi- 
ence, so  it  was  also  the  great  end  of  his  Bufferings 
and  death  to  accomplish  the  same  glorious  design. 
For  'he  gave  himself  for  our  sins,  that  he  might 
deliver  us  from  this  present  evU  world,  according  to 
the  will  of  God  and  our  Father,  Gal.  i.  4.  'lie  loved 
the  church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might 
sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by 
the  word;  that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glo- 
rious church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any  Buch 
thing:  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blem- 
ish.'    Ep.  v.  25,  26,  27.      This  was  a  piincipal    end 

1  Life  of  R.  Claridge,  p.  428. 


1732.]  VIEWS   OF   J.   besse.  85 

of  his  giving  himself  for  us,  or  offering  himself  a 
sacrifice  of  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  mankind. 
'For  he  died  for  all,  that  they  which  live  should  not 
live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  which  died  for 
them  and  rose  again.'  2  Cor.  v.  15.  This  is  the 
argument  that  the  apostle  much  insisted  upon,  and 
for  the  farther  enforcing  of  it,  I  shall  mention  but 
two  places  more.  'Ye  are  bought,'  saith  he,  'with  a 
price,  therefore  glorify  God  in  your  body,  and  in 
your  spirit  which  are  God's.'  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  'And 
you  that  were  sometimes  alienated  and  enemies  in 
your  mind  by  wicked  works,  }-et  now  hath  he  recon- 
ciled in  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to  pre- 
sent you  holy  and  unblamable,  and  unreprovable  in 
his  sight.'"   Col.  i.  21.1 

In  the  year  1732,  a  book  was  published  in  London, 
entitled  "A  Defence  of  Quakerism,"  by  Joseph 
Besse.  In  this  work  the  false  charges  against 
Friends  and  misrepresentations  of  their  writings 
made  by  Patrick  Smith,  a  vicar  in  the  established 
Church,  are  ably  refuted,  and  the  doctrines  of  the 
Society  established  by  many  quotations  from  their 
earliest  and  most  valued  authors,  corroborated  by 
scripture  testimony.  It  maintained  that  the  views 
originally  promulgated  by  Geo.  Fox  and  his  coad- 
jutors were  still  held  by  the  Society. 

From  the  date  of  the  publication  last  noticed, 
until  near  the  close  of  the  18th  century,  there  ap- 
pears to  have  been  but  little  religious  controversy 
in  the  Society,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
there  was  any  change  in  its  doctrines.  A  strict  ad- 
herence to  scriptural  language  on  controverted  points 


1  Life  of  R.  Claridge,  445. 
8 


86  bevan's  summary.  [1790. 

had  the  advantage  of  securing  peace  and  concealing 
from  public  view  any  difference  of  sentiment  that 
may  have  existed  among  its  ministers.  The  work  of 
Joseph  Phipps,  published  about  the  year  1788,  on 
"the  original  and  present  state  of  man,"  is  so  nearly 
in  accordance  with  the  doctrines  of  Barclay's  "Apol- 
ogy," that  a  particular  notice  of  it  is  deemed  unneces- 
sary. 

At  the  desire  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  in  Lon- 
don, a  "Summary  of  the  History,  Doctrine  and  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Society  of  Friends  "  was  written  by 
Joseph  Gurney  Bevan,  and  published  in  the  year 
1790. ■  The  first  three  paragraphs,  relating  to  the 
"general  belief"  of  the  Society,  are  here  subjoined, 
viz. :  — 

"  We  agree  with  other  professors  of  the  Christian 
name,  in  the  belief  of  one  eternal  God.  the  creator  and 
preserver  of  the  universe  ;  and  in  Jesus  Christ  his  Son, 
the  Messiah  and  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant. 

"When  we  speak  of  the  glorious  display  of  the 
love  of  God  to  mankind  in  the  miraculous  conception, 
birth,  life,  miracles,  death,  resurrection  and  ascension 
§f  our  Saviour,  we  prefer  the  use  of  such  terms  as  we 
find  in  Scripture  ;  and  contented  with  that  knowledge 
which  Divine  wisdom  hath  seen  meet  to  reveal,  we 
attempt  not  to  explain  those  mysteries  which  remain 
under  the  veil ;  nevertheless  we  acknowledge  and 
assert  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  who  is  the  wisdom  and 
power  of  God  unto  salvation. 


1  London  Ed.  1800,  appended  to  "  A  Refutation  of  Modern  Mis- 
representations, &c."  The  "Summary"  was  republished  in  1846, 
with  sundry  alterations,  for  the  Tract  Association  of  Friends  in 
England. 


1793.]  job  scott's  views.  87 

"  To  Christ  alone  we  give  the  title  of  the  Word  of 
God,  and  not  to  the  Scriptures ;  although  we  highly 
esteem  these  sacred  writings,  in  subordination  to  the 
Spirit  from  which  they  were  given  forth ;  and  we 
hold  with  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  they  are  able  to 
make  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus." 

In  America,  the  writings  of  "Woolman,  Benezet, 
and  some  others,  published  about  the  middle  of  the 
18th  century,  contributed  to  promote  practical  piety, 
but  were  not  designed  to  elucidate  those  points  of  doc- 
trine which  have  been  the  chief  subjects  of  religious 
controversy. 

In  the  year  1793,  Job  Scott,  of  Providence,  R.  L, 
one  of  the  most  eminent  ministers  in  the  Society, 
while  engaged  in  a  gospel  mission  to  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  was  called  to  exchange  the  trials  of  time 
for  the  rewards  of  eternity.  He  left  behind  him  a 
Journal  and  other  writings  on  religious  subjects,  most 
of  which  have  since  been  published,  and  are  found  to 
be  replete  with  spiritual  instruction. 

In  a  letter  written  just  before  his  death,  he  says:  "  I 
trust  I  as  firmly  believe  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ  as  any 
man  living,  but  I  have  no  more  belief  that  there  are 
two  divinities  than  two  Gods.  It  is  altogether  clear  to 
my  mind,  that,  that  one  Divinity  actually  became  the 
seed  of  the  woman,  and  bruised  the  serpent's  head,  as 
early  as  any  man  ever  witnessed  redemption  from  sin, 
and  is  one  in  the  head  and  in  all  the  members,  he  beino- 
like  us  in  all  things,  except  sin.  My  only  hope  of 
eternal  salvation  is  on  this  ground ;  nor  do  I  believe 
there  has  ever  been  any  other  possible  way  of  salva- 
tion, but  that  of  a  real  conception  and  birth  of  the 
divinity  in  man."     This  passage  was  omitted  in  the 


88  job  scott's  views.  [1793. 

first  edition  of  his  Journal  published  id  New  York  in 
1707;   but   having   obtained    publicity   in    England, 
through  a  letter  of  Ann  Tul         fterwards  Ann  Al< 
ancler,)  who  attended  him  in  hia  last  sickness,  it  v 
severely  criticised  by  Borne,  and  defended  by  John 
Be  van,  junior,  in  a  work  entitled,  "A  Defence  of  the 
Christian  Doctrines  of  the  Society  of  Friends  against 
the  charge  of  Socinianism." '    The  doctrine  embraced 
in  the  foregoing  extract, being  treated  ofveryfully  in 
the  writings   of  Job  Scott,  tl         (lowing   pasE   s 
selected  from  his  works,  are  deemed  appropriafc  . 
"Some  zealous  trinitarian  may  think  me  as  wick 

the  dews  thought  ( 'hri-t.  my  Lord  and  Saviour,  and 

be  ready  to  pronounce  me  as  they  did  him,  a  bli 
phemer  for  thus  exposing  the  sandy  inundation  on 
which  that  Babel  •        infusion,  th<         i  of 

the  trinity  is  boilt  And  did  I  not  believe  that  God 
is  determined  to  Pound  the  wisdom  of  the  wis  .  I 
should  greatly  marvel  that  wise  and  Bober  men  <>\' 
every  religious  name  in  Christendom  have  not  lone 
i  united  in  exploding  such  a  monster  of  absurdity. 
"  Christ  as  he  is  God  is  the  same  with  the  Father, 
and  no  more  a  distinct  person  from  him,  than  God 
light,  and  God  as  love,  is  two  distinct  fountains; 
one  of  light,  the  other  of  love.  Bence  with  the  strict- 
est  propriety  his  name  is,  and  ought  to  be, '  The  ever- 
Lasting  Father.1     X'<v.  if  he  is  tl,.         rlastingFat] 


1  Published  in  London,  1805. 

■  "On  the  Knowledge  of  the  Lord/1  &c. ;  Wbrka  of  Job  Scat, 
ILp.298.     The  original  MSS.  of  J       :     n.  comprising  this 
and  another  entitled  "  Salvation   by  Chrisi  getber  with 

"Journal,"  and  many  other  writings,  were  placed  by  his  father- 
in-law  and  children  in  the  hands  of  John  Comly,  by  whom  they 
e  published  In  two  volumes,  octavo,  in  th<  L831. 


1793.]  job  scott's  views.  89 

who  can  distinguish  him  from  the  Father,  or  make 
him  a  distinct  person  ?  Observe  well,  that  I  speak  of 
Christ  n<»\v  as  he  is  <  rod." 

"The  Word  was  God,  and  this  word  took  flesh, 
according  to  that  testimony,  'Lo!  I  come,  a  body 
hast  thou  prepared  me.'  Here  is  both  he  that  came, 
the  eternal  Word,  and  the  body  that  was  prepared  for 
him.  lie  told  Philip,  'lie  that  hath  seen  me  hath 
'i  the  Father  also.'  Barely  many  saw  that  outward 
I  iy.  who  did  not  see  the  Father,  hut  all  who  saw 
through  the  veil,  so  as  to   have  a  lull  view  and  el 

sighl  of  him.  lor  whom  the  body  was  prepared,  bim 

who  came   to  do   the  Fat:  will   in  that   body,  saw 

the   Father. 

"*Mv  Father,'  -aid  he  *i<  greater  than  I.'     Here 
speaks  of  himself  in  a  different  resped  from  what 

he  did  in  saying,  '  I  and  my  Father  are  one.'  Why 
will  the  wisdom    of  man  through  ages  strive  so   hard 

to  tix  the  crown  [head  on  flesh  and  blood  '(   Did 

not  Jesns  tell  of  a  day  and  hour,  of  which  neither  the 

angels  nor  the  Bon  himself  knew,  hut  the  Father 

only':  Surely  Christ,  the  holy  Word,  that  was  and  is 
God,  know.-,  and   always  did  know  all  thing         If  he 

knew  not  something  which  yel  the  Father  did  know, 
then  he  could  not  be  God.  Bencewe  may  safely  con- 
clude, that  by  the  Bon  which  he  here  says  knew  not, 

he  meant   the  same   as  when   he   said,  'My  Father  is 

greater  than  I,'  hut  it  is  certain  there  Lb  no  greater  or 
Less  in  <  tod  nor  any  lack  of  knowL        ."' l 

•The  death  and  Bufferings  of  Christ  iii  that  body 

are   0  at   price    iii    tie  :it    of  ( Jo, I.    and   in   all 

things  have  the  pre-eminence  in  the  views  of  the 


1  Works  of  Job  Scott,  II.  302,  303. 
8*  w 


90  job  scott's  views.  [1793. 

saints.  Therein  was  wonderfully  held  forth  the  way 
of  salvation,  as  a  work  of  God  in  man  and  of  man  by 
God;  that  it  is  all  through  suffering;  a  wounding  to 
heal,  and  a  killing  to  make  alive  in  God.  He.  the 
Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  1 
always  borne  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  ;  nor  with- 
out his  stripes  were  any  ever  healed.  God  hath  laid 
on  him  the  iniquities  of  us  all,  but  unless  we  partake 
in  the  chastisement  and  feel  his  stripes,  wo  are  not 
healed  ;  for  he  that  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it  :  hut 
he  that  will  lose  his  life  and  die  with  Christ,  shall 
save  it  unto  li:  rnal.     Ever  of  old,  'in  all  their 

afflictions  he  was  afflicted,  and  the  angel  of  his  pre- 
sence saved  them;'  Isa.  lxiii.  !'.  They  had  his  real 
presence,  or  all  else   had   been   useless;  they  w< 

afflicted  with  him.  as  well  as  he  with  them,  and  tin 
who  know  not  reconciliation  with  God  and  remission 

of  sins  in  this  way  arc  no1  reconciled  to  him.  But 
this  is  dvuth  t<>  man* %  mill  <ni<l  wisdom  too;  he  won't 
endure  it :  he  had  rather  believe  <>r  pretend  to  belii 

anything  than  die  into  lite.      His  whole   aim   as   man, 

in  his  own  activity  in  religion,  is  to  climb  up  some 

other  way:  and  among  his  many  inventions  that  he 
may  seem  to  come  in  by  Christ,  he  has  hewn  out  the 
broken  cistern  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness to  man  in  transgression  !  But  his  righteous- 
ness  is  forever  unimputable  to  all  who  have  not  died 
with  him  to  sin,  and  risen  in  the  power  of  his  resur- 
rection to  newness  of  lite;  it  can  be  no  further  im- 
puted to  any,  than  they  are  actually  conformed  to  his 

death  and  the  fellowship  of  his    Bufferings.       There  is 
an  eternal  distance  and  separation  between  Christ  and 
all  that  is  unholy.     No  grain  of  his  righteousness  w 
ever  imputed  to  any  soul,  but  in  exact  proportion  to 


1800.]  clarkson's  portraiture.  91 

its  actual  sanctiiieation  or  submission  to  the  divine 
will."1 

The  high  esteem  in  which  Job  Scott  was  held  as  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,  both  in  Europe  and  America, 
has  been  noticed  in  a  preceding  chapter  of  this  his- 
tory. He  was  called  by  Luke  Howard,  "a  powerful 
preacher,  though  but  a  mystical  divine." %  His  mys- 
ticism was  of  the  same  stamp  as  that  of  Isaac  Pen- 
nington,— ik  a  scribe  instructed  unto  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  who  "  brought  forth  out  of  his  treasures, 
things  new  and   old." 

About  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  Thos. 
Clarkson  published  his  "Portraiture  of  Quakerism," 
•  a  work  that  was  well  received  by  Friends  in  England 
and  America,  extensively  circulated,  and  presented 
by  members  of  the  Society  to  many  distinguished 
persons,  including  some  of  the  crowned  heads  of 
Europe.'  For  many  years,  while  advocating  the  abo- 
lition of  the  slave-trade,  Clarkson   had  been  brought 

into  close  intimacy  with  some  of  the  mosl  intelligent 

Friends  in  England,  and  was  thus  made  acquainted 
with  the  religion-  views  that  generally  prevailed 
among  them  in  the  latter  part  of  the  18th  century. 

After  showing  that  the  work  of  Creation,  the  illu- 
mination of  the  mind,  and  the  redemption  of  the  soul, 
are  in  the  Scriptures  attributed  alike  to  the  spirit  of 

1  "  Salvation  by  Christ,"  Job  Scott's  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  488. 

8  Luke  Howard,  the  editor  <>f  "  The  Y<>rk^hireman,"  was  a  man 
of  parr--  and  learning,  ami  at  one  time  an  influential  Friend,  much 
employed  in  meeting  affairs.     He  was  very  orthodox,  and  in  1837 

Deluded  he  could  no  longer  "walk  together"  with  the  Society 
of  Friends.  lie  then  submitted  to  the  rite  of  water  baptism,  and 
communed  with  another  church. 

3  The  Yorkshireman,  II.  334. 


92  CLARKSOX'S    PORTRAITURE.  [1800. 

God  and  to  Christ,  Clarkson  proceeds  to  state  as  the 
doctrine  of  Friends,  "That  Christ  in  all  the  offices 
stated  in  the  proposition  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
the  Spirit  of  God,  there  can  surely  be  no  doubt.  In 
looking  at  Christ,  we  are  generally  apt  to  view  him 
with  carnal  eyes.  "We  can  seldom  divest  oureeh 
of  the  idea  of  a  body  belonging  to  him,  though  this 
was  confessedly  human,  and  can  seldom  consider  him 
as  a  pure  principle  or  fountain  of  divine  life  and  light 
in  men."1   *  *  *  * 

"That  Christ  therefore,  as  he  held  the  offices  con- 
tained in  the  proposition,  was  the  Spirit  of  God.  we 
may  pronounce  from  various  view-  which  we  may 

take  of  him,  all  of  which  seem  to  lead  Q8  t<>  the  same, 
conclusion.     And  first  let    us  look  at   Christ   in    the 
scriptural  light  in  which  he  has  been  held  forth  to  as 
in  the  fourth  section  of  the  seventh  chapter,  where  1 

have  explained  the  particular  notions  of  the  Quak 
relative  to  the  new  birth.  God  may  he  considered 
here  as  having  produced,  by  means  of  hie  Holy  Spirit, 
a  birth  of  divine  life  in  the  soul  of  the  lhody  which 
had  been  prepared,'  and  this  birth  was  Christ  But 
'that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,'  says  St.  John,  ' 
spirit.'  The  only  question  then  will  be  as  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  Spirit  thus  produced.  In  answer  to 
this,  St.  John  says,  'that  God  gave  him  not  the  spirit 
by  measure,'  and  St.  Paul  Bays  the  same  thing:  'For 
in  him  all  the  fulness  of  the  godhead  dwelt  bodily.' 
Now  we  can  have  no  idea  of  a  spirit  without  measure. 
or  containing  the  fulness  of  the  godhead,  but  the 
Spirit  of  God." 

The  disastrous  controversy  and  separation  among 

i  ■     —   —  —  — 

1  Vol.  II.  pp.  158,  161.     New  York  ed.  1806. 


1801.]  HANNAH    BARNARD.  93 

Friends  in  Ireland,  which  came  to  an  end  about  the 
beginning  of  this  century,  most  probably  had  some 
influence  upon  the  doctrinal  views  of  Friends  in  Eng- 
land. It  occurred  at  a  time  when  there  was,  among 
the  most  conservative  minds,  much  anxiety  to  prevent 
the  inroads  of  skepticism  and  infidelity,  which  in 
France  had  made  great  progress ;  and  so  intent  were 
they  in  watching  against  these  evils,  that  some  were 
Km]  to  the  opposite  extreme.  The  controversy  related 
chiefly  to  the  historical  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  to 
the  uncovering  of  the  head  in  time  of  public  prayer, 
and  to  the  mode  of  solemnizing  manias:*  There 
was,  on  the  part  of  the  disaffected  members,  too  much 
boldness  and  latitude  of  speculation,  and  too  little 

rard  for  the  rules  and  advices  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing; while  on  the  part  of  the  conservative  members, 
there  was  a  rigid  administration  of  discipline,  without 
the  evidence  of  that  Christian  meekness  and  restoring 
love  which  alone  can  preserve  "  the  unity  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  bond  of  peace."1 

Nearly  the  same  remarks  will  apply  to  the  doc- 
trinal views  of  Hannah  Barnard,  and  the  course  pur- 
sued in  dealing  with  her  both  in  England  and  Amer- 
ica.2  The  first  charge  made  again.-t  her  in  the  London 
Yearly  Meeting  of  ministers  and  elders  was,  "for 
maintaining  opinions  not  consonant  with  those  of 
the  Society,  and  especially  concerning  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Jewish  wars  as  stated  in  the  Old 
Testament."  She  said  in  her  defence,  that  "she  had 
not  called  in  question  the  truth  of  the  facts  stated 
in  the   Scriptures   relative  to  the  Jewish  wars;  but 


1  See  History  of  Friends,  Vol.  IV.  chap.  1. 
8  See  Hist,  of  Friends,  Vol.  IV.  chap.  1. 

W2 


94  JEWISH   WARS.  [1801. 

thought  they  were  mistaken  in  their  belief  that  God 
approved  of  their  wars,  or  commanded  them  to 
slaughter  their  enemies."  She  referred  to  the  writ- 
ings of  Anthony  Benezet  to  corroborate  her  views. 
In  his  "Considerations  on  War,"  after  quoting  from 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  he  says:  "Hence  we  have 
reason  to  believe,  that  the  injunction  and  allowance 
granted  to  the  Jews,  of  making  war  upon  their 
enemies  and  one  upon  another,  was  in  consequence 
of  that  hardness  of  heart,  which  prevailed  amongst 
them;  and  that  this  permission  was  granted  from 
the  same  motive  as  that  mentioned  by  our  Lord, 
when  the  Jews  were  pleading  the  license  given  them 
by  Moses  to  put  away  their  wives  and  marry  other 
women,".  Mark  x.  5.  "For  the  hardness  of  your 
hearts  Moses  wrote  you  this  precept;  but  from  the 
beginning  of  the  creation  God  made  them  male  and 
female  —  what  therefore  God  hath  joined  together, 
let  no  man  pnt  asunder."  This,  as  well  as  war, 
slavery,  and  other  practices  of  the  like  nature,  were 
a  violation  upon  that  union,  purity,  and  brotherly 
love  which  subsisted  in  the  beginning  in  the  original 
constitution  of  things,  whilst  man  retained  his  pri- 
mitive innocency.  And  that  the  spilling  of  human 
blood  was  not  acceptable  in  the  eyes  of  perfect  Pu- 
rity, whom  the  apostle  denominates  under  the  appella- 
tion of  love,  God  is  Love,  appears  from  the  prohibi- 
tion laid  upon  king  David,  not  to  build  an  house 
unto  God  on  account  of  his  having  been  concerned 
in  the  destruction  of  his  fellow-creatures,  as  himself 
declared,  1  Chron.  xxii.  8.  "The  word  of  the  Lord 
came  to  me  saying,  Thou  hast  shed  blood  abundantly, 
and  hast  made  great  wars;  thou  shalt  not  build  an 


1801.]  JEWISH   WARS.  95 

house  unto  my  name,  because  thou  hast  shed  much 
blood  upon  the  earth  in  my  sight." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  tract  from  which  this 
passage  has  been  extracted,  was  extensively  circulated 
in  America,  aud  generally  approved  by  Friends.  In 
approving  these  sentiments  of  Benezet,  we  cannot 
suppose  they  intended  to  call  in  question  the  veracity 
of  Moses,  who,  in  accordance  with  the  ideas  enter- 
tained by  his  nation,  attributed  to  the  immediate  action 
or  command  of  God,  much  that  is  now  ascribed  to 
his  providential  government.  When  we  speak  of 
Divine  Providence,  we  mean  the  care  and  superin- 
tendence which  the  Most  High  exercises  over  aJl 
creatures  and  all  events;  allowing  at  the  same  time 
full  scope  to  the  free  agency  of  man. 

In  order  to  secure  this  free  agency,  without  which 
man  could  not  be  a  responsible  being,  many  things 
are  permitted  to  take  place  that  are  not  right  in 
themselves;  but  even  these,  by  the  overruling  of 
Divine  Providence,  may  be  made  to  promote  some 
good  purpose.  The  sacred  writers  never  refer  to  an 
overruling  Providence,  but  ascribe  events  imme- 
diately to  God;  thus  the  prophet  Daniel  declares  a 
great  truth  in  these  words:  "The  Most  High  ruleth 
in  the  kingdom  of  men,  and  giveth  it  to  whomsoever 
he  will,  and  setteth  up  over  it  the  basest  of  men." 

It  would  seem  by  the  opposition  made  to  Hannah 
Barnard,  on  the  ground  that  she  did  not  believe  in 
the  rectitude  of  the  Jewish  wars,  that  the  most  in- 
fluential Friends  in  England  differed  from  Benezet, 
and  most  of  the  American  Friends,  on  this  point. 
It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  in  the  testimony  of  dis- 
ownment  issued  against  H.  Barnard,  by  Hudson 
Monthly  Meeting,  the  Jewish  wars  were  not  men- 


96  instkuctiost  of  youth.  [1809. 

tioned;  but  the  grounds  of  accusation  were  that  she 
called  in  question  the  authenticity  of  various  parts 
of  the  scriptures  of  truth  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  and  particularly  that  she  did  not  unite 
with  the  Society  in  acknowledging  the  truth  of  that 
part  which  relates  to  the  miracles  and  miraculous  concep- 
tion of  Christ. 

It  has  been  remarked  by  Luke  Howard,  that  the 
case  of  Hannah  Barnard  was  "one  of  the  first  occa- 
sions of  calling  the  attention  of  our  Society  more 
closely  than  at  an}r  former  period,  to  the  doctrines 
preached  among  us,  and  to  the  Scriptural  proofs  of 
Christian  doctrine  in  general."1 

In  the  Yearly  Meeting  held  in  London  in  1805,  it 
was  stated  by  the  committee  on  epistles,  that  there 
was,  in  the  Society,  great  remissness  in  the  instruc- 
tion of  youth  in  the  principles  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion. The  further  consideration  of  the  subject  was 
postponed  to  the  next  Yearly  Meeting,  and  then  it 
was  referred  to  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  with  a 
suggestion  that,  as  a  first  step,  a  small  work  be  pre- 
pared by  way  of  question  and  answer  for  the  use  of 
children  at  an  early  age.  In  pursuance  of  these 
directions,  a  small  tract  (24  pages,  12mo.)  entitled 
"Earl}7  Christian  Instruction  in  the  form  of  a  Dia- 
logue between  a  Mother  and  a  Child,"  was  presented 
to  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  1807,  and,  after  being  re- 
vised by  the  committee  on  epistles,  was  adopted  by 
the  meeting  and  distributed  to  the  families  of  Friends. 

This  being  avowedly  only  the  first  step  in  the  pro- 
posed measure  of  Christian  instruction,  the  Meeting 
for  Sufferings  kept  the  subject  under  its  notice,  and 

1  The  Yorkshireman,  V.  28, 


1803.]  THE    TRINITY.  97 

after  deliberating  two  years  upon  it,  reported  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting  in  1809,  "that  it  had,  at  different 
sittings,  had  under  its  revision  a  draught  of  a  cate- 
chism, to  which  it  had  given  great  attention,  and  pro- 
posed various  amendments;  but  doubts  whether  it 
may  be  expedient  for  any  work  of  this  description, 
which  enters  very  minutely  into  questions  of  doctrine,  to 
be  issued  in  the  name  of  the  Yearly  Meeting."  This 
report  being  accepted  by  the  Yearly  Meeting,  the 
subject  was  dismissed  and  the  proposed  manual  of 
doctrinal  instruction  abandoned.1 

In  the  early  part  of  this  century,  a  controversy  was 
for  several  vears  carried  on  between  some  of  the 
Friends  in  England  on  the  Doctrines  of  the  Trinity, 
and  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  Thomas  Foster,  writing 
under  the  name  of  Verax,  published  in  the  year  1801, 
"An  Appeal  to  the  Society  of  Friends  on  the  pri- 
mitive simplicity  of  their  Christian  principles."  In 
the  following  year  a  reply,  supposed  to  be  written  by 
Joseph  Gurney  Bevan,  was  published  under  the 
signature  of  Vindex.  And  a  rejoinder  by  Verax 
appeared  in  the  year  1803,  entitled  "A  Vindication 
of  Scriptural  Unitarian  ism,"  &c. 

Thomas  Foster  in  his  "Vindication,"  says:  "That 
I  consider  our  early  Friends  to  have  been  generally 
Unitarians,  I  readily  admit,  and  notwithstanding 
there  is  considerable  ambiguity  in  their  writings, 
the  scale  of  evidence  has  always  appeared  to  me  to 
preponderate  decidedly  in  favor  of  that  opinion. 
They  were  no  doubt,  as  even  Vindex  allows  William 
Penn  to  have  been  at  all  times,  '  deeply  impressed 
with  the  importance  of  holding  up  the  doctrine  of 

1  The  Yorkshireman,  V.  97,  98. 
IV  — 9 


98  THE    TEINITY.  [1803. 

the  complete  unity  of  the  Deity.'  The  consistent 
acknowledgment  and  reverent  belief  of  this  truly  scrip- 
tural and  primitive  doctrine,  is  pure  and  simple  uni- 
tarianism.  It  is  in  this  sense  only,  I  have  used  the 
phrase,  as  descriptive  of  the  sentiments  of  our  early 
Friends.,, 

"  That  they  '  denied  the  eternal  Divinity  of  Christ,' 
in  the  sense  in  which  they  used  those  terms,  I  am  so 
far  from  having  asserted,  that  I  have  given  some  of 
the  strongest  of  their  expressions  in  favor  of  that 
doctrine.  But  as  with  the  voice  of  one  man,  they 
rejected  all  distinction  of  personality  in  the  Deity ; 
if  they  affixed  any  definite  or  consistent  idea  to  the 
terms  they  used  on  the  subject,  it  must  surely  have 
been  their  intention  to  ascribe  supreme  divinity  to 
God  the  Father  only,  the  uncreated  cause  of  all 
things.  It  has  been  judiciously  observed,  respecting 
our  early  Friends,  'That  on  the  subject  of  Christ, 
they  sheltered  themselves  behind  the  broad  shield  of 
allegor}^,  and  thus  did  not  clearly  discriminate  be- 
tween Christ  as  a  person  and  Christ  as  a  principle. 
And  this  led  to  great  ambiguity  of  expression  in  them, 
and  their  successors  down  to  the  present  day.  Under 
the  idea  of  possessing  a  sound  sentiment,  clear  to 
their  own  conceptions,  many  of  them  have  personi- 
fied the  spirit  of  divine  illumination  under  the  name 
of  Christ,  or  Christ  within,  or,  in  other  words,  Christ 
as  a  principle.' 

"I  apprehend  it  was  the  oneness  of  this  principle 
with  God,  which  our  early  Friends  alone  considered 
as  properly  divine  and  an  object  of  worship."  ■ 

In  1805,  "A  Defence  of  the  Christian  Doctrines  of 

1  T.  Foster's  Narrative,  &c.     London,  1813,  p.  192. 


1805.]  friends'  doctrines.  99 

the  Society  of  Friends  against  the  charge  of  Socin- 
ianism,"  &c,  by  John  Bevans,  Jur.,  was  published 
in  London.  In  this  work,  the  views  of  Thomas 
Foster  are  controverted,  in  order  to  show  that  the 
early  Friends  were  not  Unitarians,  and  the  impression 
is  attempted  to  be  conveyed,  that  they  were  in  fact 
believers  in  the  Trinity.  Thus  he  says  :  "  They,  how- 
ever, not  only  believed  in  the  Trinity,  notwithstand- 
ing their  objections  to  the  metaphysical  terms  of  the 
schools,  but  they  also  have  in  the  most  undisguised 
terms  expressed  their  belief  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 
As  to  the  insinuation  of  Verax,  that  '  there  is  con- 
siderable ambiguity  in  their  writings,'  and  '  that  on 
the  subject  of  Christ  they  sheltered  themselves  be- 
hind the  broad  shield  of  allegory ;  and  thus  did  not 
discriminate  between  Christ  as  a  person  and  Christ 
as  a  principle;'  I  reject  it  as  false,  and  inconsistent 
with  that  'manly  boldness'  wherewith,  as  he  else- 
where says,  they  avowed  their  sentiments."  l 

Those  who  are  conversant  with  the  writings  of 
Friends  published  in  the  time  of  Geo.  Fox,  know, 
that  they  not  only  objected  to  the  terms  used  in 
denning  the  Trinity,  as  three  persons;  but  they  re- 
jected the  idea  intended  to  be  conveyed.  "  There 
are  many  names,"  wrote  Isaac  Pennington,  "but 
the  thing  is  one.  The  life,  the  power,  the  wisdom  in 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  is  all  one :  yea,  they 
themselves  are  one,  perfectly  one,  not  at  all  divided 
or  separated ;  but  where  the  Father  is,  the  Son  is ; 
and  where  the  Son  is,  the  Spirit  is ;  and  where  the 
Spirit  is  there  is  both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  who 
tabernacle  in  man  in  the  day  of  the  gospel."2 

1  Defence,  &c,  p.  36.  2  Works  of  I.  P.,  I.  693. 


100  friends'  doctrines.  [1809. 

Although  John  Bevans  may  have  been  right  in 
denying  that  the  early  Friends  "sheltered  themselves 
behind  the  broad  shield  of  allegory,"  yet  it  is  unques- 
tionably true  that  they  did  write  of  "  Christ  in  us,  or 
the  Seed,"  as  &  principle.  "By this,"  says  Barclay,  "we 
understand  a  spiritual,  heavenly,  and  invisible  prin- 
ciple, in  which  God,  as  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  dwells, 
a  measure  of  which  divine  and  glorious  life  is  in  all 
men  as  a  seed  which  of  its  own  nature  draws,  invites, 
and  inclines  to  God."1 

W.  Penn  says  of  Geo.  Fox:  "In  his  testimony  or 
ministry  he  much  labored  to  open  truth  to  people's 
understandings,  and  to  bottom  them  upon  the  prin- 
ciple and  principal,  Christ  Jesus,  the  Light  of  the 
world;  that  by  bringing  them  to  something  that  was 
from  God  in  themselves,  they  might  the  better  know 
and  judge  of  him  and  themselves."2  Again,  he  says 
of  the  Friends :  "  Their  testimony  was  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  G-od  in  man."  *  *  *  *  Numerous  passages 
to  this  effect  may  be  found  in  his  works  and  other 
writings  of  the  early  Friends.  "Principle,  in  a  gen- 
eral sense,"  is  denned  by  Webster  as,  "the  cause, 
source,  or  origin  of  any  thing."  And  we  may  affirm 
that  Christ,  as  the  divine  Word,  is  the  origin  of  all 
things.  Principal,  the  chief  or  head,  is  also  a  term 
that  may  properly  be  applied  to  Christ,  as  the  "first- 
born   among    many   brethren,"  —  the   head   of    the 

Church. 

In  the  year  1809,  a  treatise  by  Rd.  Phillips,  en- 
titled "  Hints  chiefly  Scriptural  respecting  Regenera- 
tion," was  published  in  London  after  receiving  the 


1  Apology,  Prop.  V.  and  VI.  \  13. 

2  Rise  and  Progress.     Select  Works,  p.  275. 


1812.]  friends'  doctrines.  101 

usual  sanction  of  the  Society.  It  is  said  to  be  almost 
exactly  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  Job  Scott,  as 
expressed  in  his  work  called  "Salvation  by  Christ." 
He  closes  one  branch  of  his  argument  with  these 
words,  viz. :  "  From  what  has  been  said  respecting 
the  new  birth  or  regeneration,  it  appears  that  there 
is  no  other  way  of  salvation,  than  by  a  real  conception 
and  birth  of  the  divine  nature  in  man." 

In  the  year  1812,  Ratcliff  Monthly  Meeting  issued 
a  Testimony  of  disownment,  from  which  the  follow- 
ing extract  is  taken  :  "It  having  been  represented  to. 
this  meeting  that  Thomas  Foster,  one  of  its  mem- 
bers, had  imbibed  and  aided  in  propagating  some 
opinions  contrary  to  the  principles  of  our  Society,  and 
that  private  labor  had  been  unavailingly  extended,  a 
committee  was  appointed  to  visit  him  thereon,  who 
have  had  several  interviews  with  him,  and  from  their 
report  it  appears,  that  he  has  joined  a  society  who 
publicly  avow  their  disbelief  of  the  eternal  divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord ;  that  he  has  circulated  some 
anonymous  papers,  entitled  'Kemarks  on  the  Qua- 
kers' Yearly  Epistle,'  calculated  to  promote  such  senti- 
ments; and  that  he  is  publicly  stated  to  be  the  author 
of  some  publications  under  the  assumed  name  of 
Ye  rax,  (which  he  does  not  deny,)  apparently  intended 
to  prove  that  doctrine  to  have  been  held  and  sup- 
ported by  our  early  Friends.1  Against  this  decision, 
Thomas  Foster  appealed  to  the  Quarterly  Meeting 
for  London  and  Middlesex,  and  the  disownment 
being  there  confirmed,  he  appealed  to  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  London." 

Joseph  John  Gurney,  who  was  one  of  the  Yearly 

1  Foster's  Narrative,  &c.    London,  1813,  p.  112. 
9*  IV  — X 


102  friends'  doctrines.  [1812. 

Meeting's  Committee  on  Appeals,  has  left  an  account 
of  this  case.  He  says  :  "In  the  year  1814, l  Thomas 
Foster,  a  man  of  talent  and  education,  was  disowned 
by  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  RatclirT,  for  subscribing 
to  the  Unitarian  Booh  Society.  He  had  long  been  sup- 
posed to  entertain  low  views  of  the  person  of  Christ ; 
and  had  he  kept  those  views  to  himself,  he  would 
probably  have  been  left  by  Friends  to  pursue  his  own 
course.  But  no  sooner  did  he  publicly  assist  in  the 
diffusion  of  them,  than  he  became  from  this  overt 
act,  a  proper  object  of  the  discipline  of  the  Society, 
and  accordingly  lost  his  membership."  Joseph  John 
Gurney,  after  stating  that  he,  as  clerk  of  the  com- 
mittee, drew  up  a  series  of  resolutions  which  ter- 
minated with  one  confirming  the  disownment,  thus 
continues  :  "  Our  unanimity  being  ascertained  by  the 
signatures  of  the  whole  committee,  our  report  con- 
firming the  disownment  was  presented  to  the  Yearly 
Meeting.  Against  our  decision  Thomas  Foster,  as  in 
right  entitled  to  do,  made  his  final  appeal  to  the  body 
at  large,  consisting  of  about  1200  men  Friends  of 
various  ages  and  conditions,  without  any  written  creed, 
and  without  any  human  president.  Then,  indeed, 
came  on  the  trial  of  the  Society's  faith,  the  great 
question  being  immediately  before  us,  whether  Or- 
thodox Christianity  or  Unitarianism  was  the  belief 
of  Friends.  The  appellant's  speech  was  long  and  in- 
sinuating, calculated  to  amuse  the  young  and  perplex 
the  old.  The  reply  of  the  respondents  was  plain  and 
luminous,  and  accompanied  by  abundant  evidence 
selected  from  the  writings  of  the  early  Friends,  of 

1  It  should  be  1812.     The   Yearly  Meeting's  decision  was  in 
1814. 


1814.]  FKIEXDS'   DOCTRINES.  103 

the  uniform  adherence  of  the  Society  to  the  doctrines 

t/ 

of  the  Deity  and  atonement  of  Christ."1  *  *  *  * 
The  judgment  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  was  con- 
firmer],  many  of  the  most  influential  Friends,  and 
some  of  the  younger  class,  expressing  their  approval. 

The  respondents,  on  behalf  of  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing, near  the  close  of  their  reply,  expressed  the  follow- 
ing sentiments:  "  As  to  the  appellant's  assurance  that 
he  fully  believes  all  that  Christ  is  recorded  in  the  ~Rew 
Testament  to  have  said  concerning  himself  and  his 
doctrines,  it  is  not  for  us  to  assert  the  contrary ;  but 
it  is  plain  that  he  differs  from  us  as  to  the  sense  in 
which  many  important  texts  of  Scripture  are  to  be 
understood.  A  profession  of  agreement  with  all  the 
doctrines  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures,  is  not  a  suffi- 
cient bond  of  union ;  for  all  Protestants  profess  to 
appeal  to  the  Scriptures  in  defence  of  their  various 
and  opposite  principles;  and  we  might  as  well  retain 
persons  in  membership  who  hold  that  oaths  and  war 
are  lawful  to  Christians,  as  those  who  do  not  believe 
in  the  eternal  divinity  of  that  poiver  which  dwelt  in  Christ 
Jesus."  2  This  expression  seems  to  refer  to  the  charge 
made  against  him  by  Ratcliff  Monthly  Meeting,  con- 
cerning a  "  disbelief  of  the  eternal  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord." 

Thomas  Foster  insisted  that  he  never  hesitated  to 
acknowledge  the  eternal  divinity  of  that  Power  which 
dwelt  in  Christ  Jesus,  for  "  all  divine  power  strictly 
speaking  is  eternal."     "It  was  not  this,"  he  says, 

1  Life  of  J.  J.  Gurney,  Phila.  ed.  1855,  I.  108. 

2  It  is  proper  to  inform  the  reader  that  this  paragraph  is  reported 
liy  Thos.  Foster,  who  took  notes  of  the  respondents'  reply.  They 
declined  to  give  him  a  copy  or  to  examine  his  notes.  See  Foster's 
Sequel  to  an  Appeal.     London,  1816,  y.  65. 


104     DOCTRINAL  VIEWS    OF    THE  ENGLISH   FRIENDS. 

"but  the  eternal  divinity  and  omnipotence  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which  my  accusers  and  judges  disowned  me 
for  not  holding,  as  their  own  records  will  prove.  And 
that  too,  refusing  to  say  whether  they  meant  to  apply 
those  terms  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  or  to  that  divine 
power  which  dwelt  in  him ;  nor  have  I  been  since 
informed  during  any  part  of  the  discussion." ' 

The  course  pursued  by  the  English  Friends  in  this 
case,  contrasts  remarkably  with  the  liberality  of  the 
English  Methodists  in  relation  to  the  celebrated  Adam 
Clarke.  He  dissented  from  the  orthodox  creed,  and 
from  the  opinions  of  his  fellow-laborers  in  the  minis- 
try, in  relation  to  "the  eternal  sonship  of  Christ,"  yet 
he  continued  in  unity  with  the  Society,  and  at  his 
death  "the  conference  honored  him  in  its  minutes  as 
'  one  of  the  great  men  of  his  age.'  "  2 

Prior  to  this  date,  the  difference  of  sentiment  on 
doctrinal  subjects,  that  undoubtedly  existed  to  some 
extent  among  Friends,  was  less  obvious,  because  they 
usually  expressed  themselves  in  scriptural  terms  ;  but 
about  this  period  there  appeared  an  increasing  dispo- 
sition to  examine  and  discuss  those  theological  ques- 
tions which  have  so  often  agitated  the  Christian  world. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

DOCTRINAL  VIEWS  OF  THE  ENGLISH  FRIENDS. 

In  England,  the  religious  views  entertained  by  Luke 
Howard,  John  Bevans,  William  Forster,  Josiah  Fors- 

1  Foster's  Sequel  to  an  Appeal.     London,  1816,  p.  65. 
9  Steven's  History  of  Methodism,  III.  266,  475. 


DOCTRINAL  VIEWS    OF    THE  ENGLISH    FRIENDS.     105 

ter,  George  Withey,  Jonathan  Hutchinson,  Lindley 
Murray,  Joseph  John  Gurney,  Elizabeth  Fry,  Anna 
Braithwait,  and  many  other  influential  Friends,  were 
of  the  stamp  usually  called  orthodox ;  that  is  to  say, 
they  favored  or  fully  embraced  the  doctrines  of  the 
Anglican  Church  in  relation  to  the  Trinity,  original 
sin,  vicarious  atonement,  and  imputed  righteousness. 

Among  this  class  of  Friends,  whose  influence  was 
very  effective  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  London,  Joseph 
John  Gurney  may  be  considered  the  representative 
man,  inasmuch  as  his  discourses  and  writings  have 
contributed  more  than  those  of  any  other  person  to 
mould  the  opinions  of  Friends  in  Great  Britain.  His 
native  talents,  intellectual  culture,  high  social  position, 
extensive  charities,  and  sincere  piety,  entitled  him  to 
great  consideration  ;  but  his  education  under  a  cleri- 
cal preceptor  at  Oxford,  and  his  subsequent  intimacy 
with  bishops  and  rectors  of  the  established  Church, 
had  a  tendency  to  withdraw  his  attention  from  the 
writings  of  Friends,  and  to  imbue  his  mind  with  those 
doctrines  which,  in  England,  are  called  evangelical. 

The  ability  evinced  in  expounding  his  views  and 
his  candor  in  avowing  them,  render  the  study  of  his 
works  the  most  direct  method  of  ascertaining  the  doc- 
trines held  by  influential  Friends  in  England.  That 
the  sentiments  expressed  in  his  published  works  were 
generally  coincident  with  those  entertained  by  lead- 
ing minds  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  London,  may  be 
concluded  from  the  fact  that  his  standing  in  the  So- 
ciety remained  unimpaired,  and  his  labors  in  the 
ministry  wrere  sanctioned  by  certificates  expressive  of 
unity. 

On  the  publication,  in  1825,  of  his  "Essays  on 
Christianity,"  the  most  elaborate  of  all  his  works,  and 

X2 


106     DOCTRINAL  VIEWS    OF    THE    ENGLISH    FRIENDS. 

the  most  thoroughly  orthodox,  according  to  the  stand- 
ard of  the  Church  of  England,  he  received  letters  of 
congratulation  and  approval,  not  only  from  the  bishop 
of  Norwich  and  other  distinguished  churchmen,  but 
from  members  of  his  own  religious  society,  among 
whom  were  William  Forster,  Jonathan  Hutchinson, 
and  Lindley  Murray,  prominent  members  of  London 
Yearly  Meeting.  "  It  would  be  strange,"  said  \Vm. 
Forster,  "if  I  did  not  feel  more  than  a  common  and 
passing  interest  in  the  work  ;  for  I  think  I  never  found 
myself  upon  any  occasion  so  much  anticipated;  it 
gives  utterance  to  my  own  views  and  feelings  in  such 
lucid  and  convincing  language,  and  withal,  it  solves 
some  of  my  difficulties  so  thoroughly  and  satisfacto- 
rily." Jonathan  Hutchinson  wrote:  "I  have  lately 
finished  a  very  deliberate  reading  of  thy  Essays,  and 
on  the  whole  with  a  satisfaction  that  enables  me  hon- 
estly to  say,  that  I  am  glad  to  have  seen  such  a  book 
before  I  die."  And  Lindley  Murray  expressed  his 
approbation  thus  emphatically :  "  Thou  hast  indeed  by 
this  pious  labor  very  materially  served  the  cause  of 
truth  and  righteousness."  * 

It  must  not  be  understood,  however,  that  Friends 
in  Great  Britain  were  unanimous  in  approving  his 
works ;  there  were,  doubtless,  many  who  dissented 
from  some  of  his  views,  but  they  were  either  in  a 
minority  in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  or  of  a  class  who 
had  not  sufficient  influence  to  stem  the  popular 
current. 

In  order  to  compare  the  doctrines  of  J.  J.  Gurney, 
and  others  of  his  class,  with  the  writings  of  the  early 
Friends,  the  subjects  or  points  to  be  examined  will 

1  Memoirs  of  J.  J.  Gurney.     Phila.  ed.  pp.  306,  308. 


IMMEDIATE    REVELATION.  107 

be  taken  up  in  the  same  order  as  stated  in  the  first 
five  chapters  of  this  treatise,  and  reference  will  be 
made  to  the  several  sections  of  those  chapters  for 
proofs  and  illustrations. 

IMMEDIATE    REVELATION. 

§  1.  It  has  been  shown  in  Chap.  I.  §  9  and  10, 
"That  God  has  given  to  every  man  a  measure  of  the 
light  of  his  Son,  a  measure  of  grace,  or  a  measure 
of  the  Spirit,  by  which  he  calls,  exhorts,  and  strives 
with  every  man  in  order  to  save  him."  This  saving 
power  is  called  by  Barclay  "an  evangelical  principle 
of  light  and  life  wherewith  Christ  hath  enlightened 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world."  Apology, 
Prop.  VI. 

Joseph  John  Gurney,  alluding  to  the  fall  of  Adam, 
writes  as  follows:  "But  degraded  as  man  is  under 
the  baneful  influence  of  this  mournful  event,  God 
has  been  pleased  to  bestow  upon  him,  in  all  ages, 
those  'reproofs  of  instruction,'  which  'are  the  way 
of  life.'  Prov.  vi.  23.  He  has  graciously  communi- 
cated to  us  a  law,  by  which  we  may  so  regulate  our 
conduct  in  the  world  as  to  obtain  happiness,  .both 
here  and  hereafter.  It  will,  I  presume,  be  without 
difficulty  allowed,  that  these  observations  are  in  a 
general,  yet  very  important,  sense,  applicable  to  all 
men,  whether  they  are  partakers  in  the  benefit  of  an 
outward  revelation,  or  are  left  to  that  which  is  usually 
described  as  the  light  of  nature"  After  quoting  from 
Romans  ii.  13-15,  proving  that  the  Gentiles  "  show 
the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their 
consciences  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  the 
meanwhile  accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another," 
he  continues  as  follows:  "Thus  it  appears  that  there 


108  IMMEDIATE    REVELATION. 

were  individuals  in  ancient  times,  destitute  of  an  out- 
ward revelation,  who  nevertheless  obeyed  the  will 
of  our  Heavenly  Father  as  it  is  made  manifest  in 
the  heart,  —  persons  who  were  taught  of  God  to  fear 
him  and  to  'work  righteousness;'  and  on  the  other 
hand  the  multitude  of  the  gentiles,  who  gave  them- 
selves up  to  idolatrous  and  other  vicious  practices, 
were  condemned  for  this  very  reason,  that  they  sin- 
ned against  the  light  of  nature ;  and  both  practised 
and  promoted  iniquity,  although  they  knew  the 
'judgment  (or  the  righteous  decision)  of  God,  that 
they  which  commit  such  things  are  worthy  of  death.'  " l 

Again,  he  writes:  "God  has  written  his  moral 
law  on  the  hearts  of  all  men;  or,  in  other  words,  has 
interwoven  a  sense  of  it  with  their  very  nature."2  *  *  *  * 

These  passages  which  describe  the  law  written  in 
the  heart,  as  the  light  of  nature,  and  as  being  inter- 
vowen  with  mans  very  nature,  are  not  consistent  with 
the  doctrines  of  Fox,  Penn,  and  Barclay,  already 
quoted;  for  these  writers  describe  that  inward  law, 
to  which  the  conscience  bears  witness,  as  "the  grace 
of  God  which  hath  appeared  to  all  men," — "the  light 
of  Christ  within,  as  God's  gift  for  man's  salvation." 
Chap.  I.  §  9  and  10. 

It  must  be  observed,  however,  in  justice  to  J.  J. 
Gurney,  that  he  is  not,  in  this  instance,  consistent 
with  himself,  for  he  has,  elsewhere,  acknowledged 
that  the  law  written  in  the  heart  proceeds  from  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Thus  he  says,  in  reference  to  "the  immediate  and 
perceptible  operation  of  the  Spirit,"  *  *  *  *  "T 
have  in  the  first  place  plainly  to  declare  my  belief  in 

1  Essays  on  Christianity,  London  ed.  1825,  pp.  516,  517. 

2  Ibid.  558. 


IMMEDIATE    REVELATION.  109 

unison  with  that  of  Friends  from  their  first  rise  to 
the  present  da}',  that  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  very  far  from  being  confined  to  those  who  have  a 
knowledge  of  Holy  writ,  and  of  the  incarnate,  cru- 
cified, and  risen  Saviour  of  whom  it  testifies.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  my  firm  conviction,  that  as  Christ 
died  for  all  men,  so  all  men,  through  his  mediation 
and  sacrifice  on  the  cross,  are  placed  in  a  capacity 
of  salvation  and  receive  a  measure  of  divine  light, 
which,  although  in  numberless  instances  shining  '  in 
darkness,'  and  overborne  by  ignorance  and  supersti- 
tion, is  in  its  own  nature  pure  and  holy,  and  per- 
ceptible to  the  rational  mind  of  man  —  so  that  those 
who  believe  in  it,  and  obey  it,  are  thereby  led  to  fear 
God  and  to  keep  his  law  as  it  is  written  in  their 
hearts ;  that  such  as  these  are  accepted  for  Christ's 
sake,  even  though  they  may  never  have  heard  his 
name;  and  thus  sharing  in  the  benefit  of  his  atoning 
death  on  the  cross,  through  faith  in  the  degree  of 
light  bestowed  upon  them,  they  are  to  be  regarded 
as  partakers  in  their  measure,  and  according  to  their 
capacity,  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ."1 

TThat  he  means  by  partaking  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  he  elsewhere  explains  as  follows : 
"  As  eating  the  bread  of  life  is  identical  with  believ- 
ing in  Christ  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  so  eating  his 
flesh  is  identical  with  such  a  belief  in  him  as  is  espe- 
cially directed  to  his  atoning  sacrifice."  The  obvious 
question  arises,  How  can  those  believe,  in  this  man- 
ner, who  "never  have  heard  of  his  name  ?" 

1  J.  J.  G's  Declaration  of  Faith,  Phila.  ed.  1847,  p.  8. 
10 


110  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 


THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 

§  2.  In  the  second  chapter  of  this  treatise  (sect.  1) 
it  has  been  shown  that  the  first  imprisonment  of 
George  Fox  resulted  from  his  denying  the  commonly 
received  doctrine,  that,  by  the  Scriptures  were  to  be 
tried  "all  doctrines,  religions,  and  opinions."  He 
told  the  people,  it  was  "the  Holy  Spirit  by  which 
the  holy  men  of  God  gave  forth  the  Scriptures, 
whereby  opinions,  religions,  and  judgments  were  to 
be  tried."  And  Eobert  Barclay  says  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, "because  they  are  only  a  declaration  of  the 
fountain  and  not  the  fountain  itself,  therefore  they 
are  not  to  be  esteemed  the  principal  ground  of  all 
truth  and  knowledge,  nor  yet  the  adequate  primary 
rule  of  faith  and  manners."  They  are  "a  secondary 
rule  subordinate  to  the  Spirit,  from  which  they  have 
all  their  excellency  and  certainty."  "The  letter  of 
the  Scriptures  is  outward  of  itself  a  dead  thing,  a 
mere  declaration  of  good  things,  but  not  the  things 
themselves,  therefore  it  neither  is  or  can  be  the  chief 
or  'principal  rule  of  Christians."  §  2.  Nevertheless, 
the  early  Friends  acknowledged  the  authenticity  and 
divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and  expressed 
their  willingness  that  "all  their  doctrines  and  prac- 
tices should  be  tried  by  them;"  but  they  believed 
that  none  could  rightly  understand  and  interpret 
them  without  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  "which  is 
the  first  and  principal  leader."  §  2  and  4. 

Joseph  John  Gurney,  in  some  passages  of  his  writ- 
ings, assigns  to  the  Scriptures  the  principal,  instead 
of  the  secondary  place_,  in  the  illumination  and  con- 
version of  the  soul.  Thus,  he  writes:  "In  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  written  prophecy ;  in  the  wisdom  of  the 


THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES.  Ill 

written  doctrine;  in  the  purity  of  the  written  law — 
in  the  harmony  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible,  and 
almost  endless  variety — and  in  its  efficacy,  as  the  prin- 
cipal means  employed  by  divine  Providence  for  the 
illumination,  conversion,  and  spiritual  edification  of 
men  —  the  inquirer  cannot  fail  to  perceive  unquestion- 
able indications  of  the  divine  origin  of  Holy  Writ."1 

" Whatsoever  in  the  preachings  or  writings  of 
modern  Christians,  has  any  tendency  to  convert,  purify, 
and  save  the  souls  of  men,  never  fails  to  be  found  in 
its  original  form,  in  the  Bible."  2 

"  The  moral  law  as  revealed  in  Scripture,  partakes 
of  the  character  of  its  Author :  first,  because  it  pre- 
scribes the  practice  of  every  virtue,  and  is  therefore 
holy,  just,  and  good ;  and  secondly,  because  it  is 
spiritual,  insinuates  itself  into  the  heart,  reaching 
the  spirit,  and  convincing  the  understanding.  It 
applies  to  all  circumstances,  comprehends  all  condi- 
tions, regulates  all  motives,  directs  and  controls  all 
overt  acts."  3 

"  The  Bible  which  alone  fully  reveals  the  nature 
and  character  of  sin,  expressly  declares  that  all  men 
have  sinned  and  are  guilty  in  the  sight  of  God. 
Although  it  is  chiefly  from  the  light  of  Scripture  that 
we  obtain  a  knowledge  of  this  doctrine,  we  are  quite 
certain  now  that  we  have  obtained  it,  that  the  doc- 
trine is  true."  4 

Compare  these  passages  with  the  language  of  Geo. 
Fox.  "I  directed  them  to  the  divine  light  of  Christ 
and  his  Spirit  in  their  hearts,  which  would  let  them 


1  Essays  on  Christianity,  p.  543. 

2  Portable  Evidence,  Phila.  ed.  1856,  p.  14. 

3  Ibid.  46.  4  Ibid.  126. 


112  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

see  all  their  evil  thoughts,  words,  and  action?,  that 
they  had  thought,  spoken,  and  acted ;  by  which  light 
they  might  see  their  sin,  and  also  their  Saviour  Christ 
Jesus  to  save  them  from  their  sins."  ■  This  accords 
with  the  declaration  of  Christ,  concerning  the  Com- 
forter or  Spirit  of  Truth,  "He  will  reprove  the  world 
of  sin." 

It  has  been  shown  in  chap.  II.  §  1,  that  Geo.  Fox 
regarded  the  "more  sure  word  of  prophecy,"  spoken 
of  by  Peter,  (2  Pet.  i.  10.)  not  as  the  Scriptures,  but 
as  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  same  view  is  thus  expressed 
by  Robert  Barclay :  "  As  for  the  more  sure  word  of 
prophecy,  we  grant  it  to  be  the  rule;  but  deny  that 
that  more  sure  word  is  the  Scriptures,  hut  it  is  that 
word  in  the  heart  from  which  the  Scriptures  came  and 
in  and  by  which  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  inter- 
preted." 2  This  view  is  also  supported  by  the  writ- 
ings of  Wm.  Penn  and  Geo.  Whitehead. 

Joseph  John  Gurney.  in  his  "Brief  Remarks  on 
Impartiality  in  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture," 
writes  as  follows:  "The  idea  was  at  one  time  rather 
prevalent  among  the  members  of  our  Society  that 
when  the  Apostle  used  the  term,  'a  more  sure  word 
of  prophecy,'  he  was  alluding  not  to  any  thing  writ 
ten,  but  to  that  divine  illuminating  influence  by 
which  the  prophets  were  inspired,  and  which  guide? 
the  Christian  believer  into  all  truth.  Such  a  view  of 
the  passage  is  indeed  but  seldom  insisted  on  at  the 
present  day;  but  as  it  is  still  sometimes  advanced,  I 
think  it  right  to  acknowledge  my  own  sentiment  that 


1  Journal  of  G.  Fox,  Vol.  I.  187. 

2  Truth  cleared  of  Calumnies.     Barclay's  Works,  London,  1692, 
p.  17. 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  113 

it  is  at  variance  with  that  simplicity  which  we  ought 
alwavs  to  maintain  in  the  interpretation  of  the  sacred 
writings.  That  the  very  'sure  word  of  prophecy,' 
which  had  been  uttered  and  teas  written,  is  here  meant, 
is  evident  from  the  immediate  context,  in  which  the 
Apostle  distinguishes  this  word  from  the  day-star 
which  arises  in  the  heart,  and  at  the  same  time  iden- 
tifies it  (as  I  conceive)  with  prophecy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." 

A  still  more  important  difference  between  the  doc- 
trinal views  of  J.  J.  Gurney  and  those  of  the  early 
Friends  relates  to  the  acceptation  of  the  word  gospel 
as  used  in  the  Xew  Testament.  It  signifies  literally 
glad  tidings,  and  by  Geo.  Fox  and  his  coadjutors 
was  understood  to  mean  "  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth."  [Rom.  i.  16.) 
And  which  Paul  Bays,  "came  not  in  word  only  but 
also  in  power."  (1  The*,  i.  5.) 

Geo.  Fox  writes  in  his  Journal:  "I  was  .-peaking 
in  the  meeting,  that  the  gospel  was  the  power  of  God, 
and  how  it  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  in 
men."  ■  At  another  time  he  declared  that  the  gospel 
was  the  power  of  God,  which  was  preached  before 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  or  any  of  them 
were  printed  or  written ;  aud  it  was  preached  in  every 
creature ;  of  which  a  great  part  might  never  see  nor 
hear  of  those  four  books."2 

Isaac  Pennington  held  the  same  doctrine;  and 
Robert  Barclay  has  thus  expressed  it  in  his  Apology, 
(Prop.  Y.  and  VI.  §  23:)  "This  saving  spiritual  light  is 
the  gospel,  which  the  Apostle  saith  expressly  is  preached 
in  every  creature  under  heaven;  even  that  very  gospel 

1  Journal  G.  F.,  I.  1G0.  a  Ibid.  Vol.  II.  p.  25. 

10*  Y 


114  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 

of  which  Paul  was  made  a  minister.  [Col.  i.  23.) 
For  the  gospel  is  not  a  mere  declaration  of  good 
things,  being  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  unto 
all  those  that  believe,  Row.  i.  16,  though  the  outward 
declaration  of  the  gospel  be  taken  sometimes  for  the 
gospel;  yet  it  is  but  figuratively  and  by  a  metonymy. 
For  to  speak  properly,  the  gospel  is  this  in  word, 
power,  and  life,  which  preacheth  glad  tidings  in  the 
hearts  of  all  men,  offering  salvation  unto  them,  and 
seeking  to  redeem  them  from  their  iniquities,  and 
therefore  it  is  said  to  be  preached  in  every  creature 
under  heaven  :  whereas  there  are  many  thousands  of 
men  and  women  to  whom  the  outward  gospel  was 
never  preached." 

Joseph  John  Gurney,  on  the  contrary,  limits  the 
application  of  the  term  "gospel"  to  the  records  of 
the  New  Testament.  Thus,  he  says,  in  reference  to 
persons  who  have  received  outward  instruction : 
"  Their  case  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  that  of  the 
uninstructed  heathen,  who  have  never  heard  the  truth. 
To  these,  the  gospel  has  been  preached ;  it  is  written 
in  the  book  of  God  for  their  instruction,  and  if  they 
reject  it,  they  do  so  at  their  peril."  1  In  reference  to 
regeneration,  he  writes:  "In  efTectimr  this  blessed 
change  in  the  affections  of  fallen  man,  the  Holy 
Spirit  makes  use  of  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  as  his  grand  appointed  instrument.  The 
gospel  written  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  preached  by 
the  Lord's  messengers,  is  a  spiritual  weapon  of 
heavenly  mould,  and  when  wielded  by  a  divine  hand, 
it  penetrates  the  heart  and  becomes  the  power  of 
God  unto    salvation."2      After  commenting  on   the 

1  Portable  Evidence,  p.  164.        2  Essay  on  Love  to  God,  p.  5. 


THE    ORIGINAL    AND    PRESENT    STATE    OF    MAN.     115 

Scripture  text,  "  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation,"  he 
thus  continues  :  "  It  is  surely  much  to  be  regretted, 
that  by  some  persons  under  our  name,  the  passage  on 
which  these  remarks  are  offered  has  been  misunder- 
stood, and  (without  the  smallest  intention,  as  I 
believe,  to  deviate  from  accurate  truth,)  wrested 
from  its  obvious  meaning.  The  declaration  that 
'  the  gospel  of  Christ  is  the  power  of  God  unto  sal- 
vation,' has  been  regarded  not  as  a  description  of 
the  efficacy  of  that  gospel  for  the  salvation  of  sinners, 
but  as  a  definition  of  the  gospel  itself,  as  if  the  'gos- 
pel of  Christ'  and  the  'power  of  God'  were  con- 
vertible terms.  Hence  it  is  that  '  the  gospel '  is  not 
the  good  news  of  salvation  through  a  crucified 
Saviour,  but  the  'power  of  God,'  —  or,  in  other 
words,  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart. 
The  tendency  of  this  mistake  to  dismiss  from  our 
view  a  most  important  and  fundamental  part  of 
Christian  truth, — that  very  part  on  which  all  the 
rest  is  built, — is  too  obvious  to  require  notice."1 

THE    ORIGINAL   AND    PRESENT    STATE    OF   MAN. 

§  3.  In  the  third  chapter  of  this  treatise  the  doc- 
trines of  the  early  Friends  in  relation  to  the  original 
and  present  state  of  man  were  examined,  and  the  fol- 
lowing points  established.  First.  That  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin  was  not  held  by  them,  but  was  called 
by  Barclay  "  an  invented  and  unscriptural  barbarism." 
"  For  if  a  son  bear  not  the  iniquity  of  his  father,  (Eze- 
kiel  xviii.  20,)  or  of  his  immediate  parents,  far  less 

1  Brief  Remarks  on  Impartiality  in.  the  Interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture.    New  York  ed.  p.  7. 


116     THE    ORIGINAL    AND    PRESENT    STATE    OF    MAN. 

shall  he  bear  the  iniquity  of  Adam."  Therefore  no 
sin  is  imputed  to  infants.  §  2.  Secondly.  It  was 
shown  that,  according  to  Barclay,  there  is  a  seed  of 
sin  propagated  to  all  men,  which  inclines  them  to 
iniquity,  but  it  is  only  by  joining  with  it,  or  yield- 
ing to  its  influence,  that  men  become  sinners.  §  3. 
Thirdly.  That  the  recorded  experience  and  dying 
expressions  of  some  of  the  most  prominent  of  the 
early  Friends  shows  that  they  did  not  believe  they 
were  born  in  sin.  §  4  and  5.  Fourthly.  They  believed 
a  state  of  perfection  or  freedom  from  sin,  attainable  in 
this  life.    §§  8,  9,  and  10. 

Joseph  John  Gurney,  alluding  to  the  fall  of  Adam 
and  Eve,  says  :  "  Their  original  natural  virtue  was  lost 
forever;  their  bodies  were  condemned  to  death  ;  and 
morally  they  were  dead  already,  prone  to  wickedness, 
and  destitute  of  any  power  of  their  own  to  perform  a 
good  action.  Such  is  the  condition  of  those  persons 
who  are  'dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,'  a  condition 
common  by  nature  to  all  mankind.  It  is  a  proverb 
familiar  to  reason  as  well  as  to  religion,  that  no  man 
can  'bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean,'  and  the 
Scriptures  teach  us  that  the  moral  condition  of  Adam 
was  transmitted  to  his  descendants  of  all  generations."  l 
Again  he  says  in  relation  to  the  fall,  it  "was  the  im- 
mediate cause  of  a  moral  degeneracy,  and  therefore 
of  sl  punishable  guilt  in  the  whole  family  of  his  descend- 
ants."2 "The  whole  race  of  their  descendants  have 
inherited  a  nature  infected  with  sin,  and  prone  to 
evil."3  "In  consequence  of  this  mournful  change, 
the  whole  race  of  their  descendants  inherit  a  sinful 


1  Portable  Evidences,  129. 

2  Essays  on  Christianity.     London,  p.  209.  8  Ibid.  p.  548. 


THE    DIVINE   BEING.  117 

nature,'"  &C.1  "  We  are  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath.  Prone  to  iniquity,  and  transgressors  from  the 
womb,  we  are  alienated  from  God  who  is  the  source  of 
all  happiness  ;  and  in  the  world  to  come,  eternal  sepa- 
ration from  Him,  and  therefore  eternal  misery  is  the 
appointed  consequence  of  our  evil  doings."2 

THE    DIVINE    BEING. 

§  4.  In  the  fourth  chapter  of  this  treatise,  the  doc- 
trines of  the  early  Friends  concerning  the  Supreme 
Being  were  exhibited.  They  may  be  recapitulated  as 
follows:  First.  They  denied  the  doctrine  of  "The 
Trinity  of  three  distinct  and  separate  persons  in  the 
unity  of  essence."  Chap.  iv.  §  2.  Secondly.  "They 
believed  in  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
cas  one  Divine  Being,  one  God  blessed  forever.'  "  §  3 
and  4.  Thirdly.  They  denied  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
a  person  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  §  5. 
Fourthly.  They  believed  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  as 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh  ;  they  also  acknowledged 
his  manhood,  (the  soul  and  body,)  according  to  the 
Scriptures.  §  6.  Fifthly.  They  maintained  that  the 
Eternal  word  that  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and 
was  God,  manifested  himself  as  the  "Spiritual  rock" 
that  followed  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness, — as 
"the  Spirit  of  Christ"  that  spoke  through  the  pro- 
phets,—  as  the  glory  of  the  Lord  that  appeared  to 
Isaiah  in  the  temple,  —  as  the  "only -begotten  of  the 
Father  "  that  took  flesh,  and  dwelt  in  fulness,  or  without 
measure,  in  Jesus  of  Xazareth, — and  as  the  Comforter 
or  Spirit  of  Truth  that  comes  "  in  the  spirit  and  power 
of  the  Most  High  "to  "  be  with  his  disciples  always  to 
the  end  of  the  world."  §  7  and  8.     Sixthly.  They  held 

1  Essays  on  Christianity.     London,  p.  219.  2  Ibid.  510. 

Y2 


118  THE    DIVINE   BEING. 

that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  head,  or  chief  member  of  that 
spiritual  body,  of  which  all  are  members  who  are  born 
of  the  spirit.  Hence  some  of  them  spoke  of  him,  "as 
our  most  blessed  and  elder  brother"  who,  "  even  as 
mediator  is  ever  in  being  in  a  most  glorious  state." 
§§  9,  10,  11. 

Seventhly.  They  believed  that  Jesus  Christ,  the 
head  of  the  church,  and  the  saints  his  members,  in 
their  heavenly  state,  are  not  in  carnal  but  in  spiritual 
bodies.  §§  11,  12,  13,  14. 

Eighthly.  That  "  since  one  outward  thing  cannot 
be  the  proper  figure  or  representative   of  another," 

*  *  *  *  "then  Christ's  body,  or  what  he  had  from 
the  virgin,  strictly  considered,  was  not  the  seed."  §  16. 
"  The  seed,  ^race  or  word  of  God  — the  Light  where- 
with  every  one  is  enlightened  —  is  "a  spiritual, 
heavenly  and  invisible  principle,  in  which  God,  as 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  dwells,  a  measure  of  which 
divine  and  glorious  life  is  in  all  men  as  a  seed,  which 
of  its  own  nature  draws,  invites,  and  inclines  to  God." 

*  *  *  *  "But  by  this,"  says  Barclay,  "we  do  not  at 
a]l  intend  to  equal  ourselves  to  that  holy  man,  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary* 
in  whom  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelt  bodily, 
so  neither  do  we  destroy  the  reality  of  his  present  ex- 
istence, as  some  have  falsely  calumniated  us."  §  17. 

Ninthly.  They  acknowledged  "The  man  Christ 
Jesus  "  as  the  "  one  mediator  between  God  and  man," 
who  "  received  gifts  for  men  "  which  were  "first  given 
him  of  the  Father."  Yet,  as  Geo.  Fox  writes  :  "  Xone 
know  him  as  a  mediator  and  a  lawgiver,  nor  an  offer- 
ing, nor  his  blood  that  cleanseth  them,  but  as  they 
know  him  working  in  them."  §§  18,  19,  20. 

Joseph  John  Gurney,  while  avoiding  the  use  of  the 


THE    DIVINE    BEING.  119 

term  Trinity,  held  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land on  this  subject,  attributing  to  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit  a  distinct  and  separate  personality.    Thus 
he  writes:  "I have  never  thought  it  right,  either  in 
preaching  or  writing,  to  make  use  of  this  term,  [Trin- 
ity,] which  is  scholastic  in  its  origin,  and  is  liable  to 
misconstruction  ;    but  I  consider  the   doctrine  itself, 
though  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the  natural  under- 
standing of  man,  to  be  plainly  set  forth  in  Scripture ; 
and.  so  far  am  I  from  regarding  it  as  merely  theoreti- 
cal in  its  nature,  that  I  accept  it  as  of  the  highest 
practical  importance  in  the  experience  of  every  be- 
liever."1    "  Such  is  the  scriptural  evidence  of  which 
we  are  in  possession,  that  the  Father  is  God,  that  the 
Son  is  God,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God.     Having 
considered  this  evidence,  we  may  now  proceed  to  take 
a  view  of  some  additional  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  which  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whose  deity  is  thus  distinctively  and  separately  indicated, 
are  presented  to  our  attention  as  the  united  sources 
of  the  Christian's  help  and  consolation,  the  united 
objects  of  the  Christian's  belief  and  obedience.     This 
description  is  indeed  applicable  to  the  passages  already 
cited  from  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  relation  to  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Holy  Ghost:  vide  xiv.  26,  xv.  26,  xvi. 
7,  8." 

"  With  respect  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  must  in  the 
first  place  direct  our  attention  to  those  passages  of 
the  Scripture  in  which  he  is  described  not  merely 
in  his  influence  and  operation,  but  in  his  personal 
character."  *  *  *  *  « The  very  pointed  allusions 
made  by  our  Saviour  to  the  personality  of  the  Holy 


1  A  Declaration  of  his  Faith  by  J.  J.  G.     Phila.  1847,  p.  19. 


120  THE    DIVINE   BEING. 

Spirit  are  in  exact  accordance  with  the  mode  of  ex- 
pression which  was  often  adopted  in  allusion  to  the 
same  subject  by  his  inspired  disciples.  From  various 
passages  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  the  Epistles,  we 
can  scarcely  do  otherwise  than  deduce  the  inference, 
that  these  servants  of  the  Lord  regarded  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  one  possessing  a  personal  authority,  exer- 
cising personal  powers,  and  requiring  a  personal  alle- 
giance."* 

"  Now  if  the  inquiry  be  addressed  to  us,  Who  is 
this  person,  of  whom  Christ  and  his  apostles  thus 
bear  witness?"  *  *  *  *  "the  fundamental  principles 
of  our  religion  and  the  whole  analogy  of  Scripture, 
will  assuredly  admit  but  of  one  answer,  This  Person 
is  God."2 

"In  order  to  complete  our  views  of  the  Scriptural 
evidences  which  bear  upon  the  present  subject,  I 
have  now  to  observe,  that,  although  this  threefold  dis- 
tinction in  the  divine  nature  is  the  most  clearly  re- 
vealed to  us  in  the  New  Testament,  yet  there  are 
also  various  passages  in  the  Sacred  writings  of  the 
ancient  Hebrews,  which  appear  to  indicate  a  plurality 
in  the  One  God."3  "On  a  careful  perusal  of  the 
whole  of  the  sacred  volume,  he  [the  honest  inquirer] 
is  led  to  take  a  view,  first,  of  the  natural  and  moral 
attributes  of  the  Supreme  Being;  secondly,  of  the 
personality  and  unity  in  Him  of  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Spirit,"  &c.4 

In  relation  to  the  manhood  of  Jesus  Christ,  Joseph 

1  Essays  on  Christianity,  145,  148. 

2  Essays,  London  ed.  1825.  I  am  informed  that  in  the  3d  edi- 
tion, these  words  [this  Person]  are  omitted  and  the  pronnin  He 
substituted. 

8  Ibid.  153.  4  Ibid.  559. 


THE    DIVINE    BEING.  121 

John  Gurney  writes  as  follows:  "His  body  was  a 
human  body,  and  his  mind  a  human  mind;  and 
therefore  we  cannot  with  any  reason  refuse  to  allow, 
that  he  was  really  and  absolutely  man." 

"Now  I  conceive  that  no  one  who  takes  a  just  and 
comprehensive  view  of  these  prophecies  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  the  gospel  narratives  on  the  other,  can 
refuse  to  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  real  and  proper 
humanity  of  Jesus  Christ."  *  *  *  *  He  "was  unques- 
tionably man  —  a  creature  of  God,  endued  with  a 
human  body  and  a  human  soul."1  "If  we  admit 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  endued  with  a  human 
soul,  (and  where  is  the  unsophisticated  reader  of  the 
four  Gospels  who  will  question  the  fact?)  we  must 
also  admit,  on  principles  already  recognized,  that 
after  he  expired  on  the  cross  his  soul  continued  to 
exist ;  and  continuing  to  exist,  that  soul  was  presently 
reunited  to  his  body,  which  was  raised  on  earth  and 
glorified  in  heaven."2  "Wonderful  indeed  are  both 
the  equity  and  the  love  God  has  manifested  in  ordain- 
ing that  his  rational  children  shall  be  judged  by  a 
Person  who  in  one  point  of  view  is  their  brother  and 
their  peer."3 

This  expression — their  peer — though  less  reverential, 
was  probably  meant  to  be  understood  in  the  same 
sense  as  that  of  "our  elder  brother,"  found  in  the 
writings  of  the  early  Friends.  A  peer  is  "  an  equal, 
one  of  the  same  rank,"4  but  the  elder  brother,  in 
the  Jewish  economy,  was  the  heir  of  his  father's  au- 
thority and  the  head  of  the  tribe.  So  also,  in  the 
aristocratic  families  of  Europe,  the  eldest  brother  is 


1  Essays,  London  ed.  1825,  pp.  222,  258.  2  Essays,  323 

3  Essays,  London  ed.  1825,  p.  351.  4  Webster. 

IV-  11 


122  THE    DIVINE    BEING. 

the  heir  of  the  title  and  estate.  The  term  peer,  as 
used  by  Gurney,  is  improperly  applied. — "We  do 
not  at  all  intend  to  equal  ourselves,"  says  Barclay,  "  to 
that  holy  man  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

But  this  "Person"  who  is  thus  characterized  as 
"a  creature  of  God"  —  a  "brother  and  peer,"  —  is  by 
the  same  author  represented  as  God.  For  instance, 
he  says :  "  Who  was  that  Person  who  thus  became  in- 
carnate, was  born,  lived,  died,  and  rose  again,  a  man? 
It  was  he  who  shared  the  glory  of  the  Father  before 
the  world  was  —  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  who 
dwelt  in  his  bosom  —  the  Word  by  whom  all  things 
were  made,  by  whom  all  men  were  enlightened,  and 
who  was  himself  Jehovah.  Since  then  eternity  is 
the  very  first  of  the  attributes  of  Deity,  since  the 
divine  nature  is  unchangeable,  so  that  he  who  was 
God  in  the  beginning  was  God  forever,  it  plainly 
follows,  that  when  the  Son  or  Word  of  the  Father 
assumed  our  nature  and  was  born  a  child  into  the 
world,  he  who  before  had  been  God  only,  became 
Q-od  and  man.  While,  however,  this  inspired  nar- 
rative plainly  unfolds  and  establishes  the  doctrine, 
that  Jesus  was  man,  it  abounds  with  a  variety  of 
evidence  that  he  was  also  God."  "The  doctrine  of 
the  godhead  or  deity  of  Christ  is  a  necessary  deduc- 
tion from  that  of  his  eternal  pre-existence:  for  while 
the  being  of  every  creature  of  God  has  necessarily 
commenced  at  some  particular  point  of  time,  God 
alone  has  existed  from  eternity."1 

"Since  therefore,  when  Jesus  was  born,  when  a 
body  was  prepared  for  him, — when  he  was  made  incar- 
nate of  a  woman,  and  thus  came  into  the  world,  —  he 


1  Essays,  258,  264,  230. 


THE    DIVINE    BEING.  123 

proceeded  forth  from  God  and  descended  from  heaven, 
it  follows  that  before  his  birth,  before  his  incarnation, 
he  was  with  God  in  heaven.  As  the  doctrine  that 
Jesus  Christ  pre-existed  in  glory  with  the  Father,  is 
thus  plainly  to  be  deduced  from  the  declarations  of 
Scripture,  so  there  are  other  passages  of  the  sacred  vol- 
ume (perfectly  accordant  with  these  declarations)  from 
which  we  may  derive  much  information  respecting 
the  antecedent  extent  of  his  pre-existence."  After 
quoting  many  passages  of  Scripture,  the  conclusion 
from  them  is  thus  expressed:  "Such  are  some  of  the 
principal  passages  in  Scripture  on  which  Christians 
ground  their  belief,  that  their  Eedeemer  pre-existed 
in  some  higher  condition  than  that  which  appertains 
to  mortals;  and  which  enable  them  to  trace  his  pre- 
existence  backward,  even  to  the  'days  of  eternity.' 
What  then  was  the  nature  in  which  Christ  thus  pre- 
existed? I  venture  to  reply  on  what  I  deem  to  be 
the  clear  authority  of  the  Sacred  records,  —  not  the 
nature  of  men  —  not  that  of  angels  —  not  that  of  any 
order  of  creatures,  however  eminent  in  the  scale  of 
being,  but  the  nature  of  God  himself."1 

In  relation  to  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  Joseph  John 
Gurney  writes  as  follows:  "It  has  always  been  the 
doctrine  of  the  Society  of  Friends  that  Christ  —  even 
that  very  Saviour  who  became  incarnate  —  was  cruci- 
fied and  rose  again — is  "  the  true  light  which  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world."  John  i.  9. 
"For  my  own  part,  I  cordially  concur  with  the  senti- 
ment, that  He  who  dwells  and  reigns  by  his  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  souls  of  his  believing  children,  appears  by  a 
measure  of  the  same  spirit,  in  the  hearts  of  all  men,  to 

1  Essays,  225,  229. 


124  THE    DIVINE    BEING. 

enlighten  and  direct  their  consciences,  to  bring  them 
to  a  sense  of  their  responsibility  to  God,  and  to  lead 
them  in  the  paths  of  virtue.  It  is  my  belief,  that  all 
men,  everywhere,  have  their  day  of  visitation,  and 
that  a  ray  from  the  Sun  of  righteousness  enters  ever}'' 
dark  heart  of  the  rational  children  of  God.  And 
where  the  ray  is,  there  is  the  Sun.  Where  the  influence 
of  the  Spirit  is,  even  in  its  smallest  measure,  there  is 
Christ.  By  it  he  is  conveyed  to  the  mind,  by  it  he 
divells  there.  From  the  emanations  of  his  own  light, 
life,  and  power,  he  can  never  be  separated.  And  fur- 
ther—  where  Christ  is  by  his  Spirit,  there  are  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  —  one  God 
blessed  forever." 

These  views  are  truly  in  accordance  with  the  doc- 
trines of  Friends;  but  the  same  author  thus  continues: 
"But  to  say  that  this  ray  is  itself  the  Sun  —  that  this 
divine  principle  or  influence  is  itself  the  Christ,  to 
allege  that  Jesus  was  divine,  only  because  this  influ- 
ence dwelt  in  the  temple  of  his  body,  even  as  it  dwells 
in  the  righteous  of  all  generations  ;  to  apply  to  it  the 
common  terms  of  an  orthodox  faith,  —  to  call  it  the 
Son  of  God,  the  Saviour,  Immanuel,  God  with  us,  the 
Son  and  sent  of  the  Father  —  the  Lamb  of  God,  — to 
ascribe  to  it  the  attributes  and  offices  of  the  Messiah, 
—  is  a  practice,  as  I  believe,  utterly  opposed  to  the 
testimony  of  Scripture,  and  fraught  with  the  deepest 
danger  to  the  souls  of  men."  * 

To  the  unsophisticated  mind  the  following  query 
will  probably  present  itself.  As  it  is  acknowledged 
that  Christ  dwells  by  his  Spirit  "in  the  souls  of  his 
believing  children,"  —  and  "where   Christ  is  by  his 


Letter  to  "  The  Followers  of  Elias  Hicks  "  in  Bait.,  p.  17. 


THE    DIVINE    BEING.  125 

Spirit,  there  is  the  Father  and  the  Son," — whence  is 
the  danger  of  calling  him  the  Son  —  or  the  Lamb  of 
God? 

George  Fox  says :  "  Here  you  may  see  what  men 
get  by  their  outward  knowledge;  for  when  Adam  and 
Eve  fed  upon  the  tree  of  knowledge,  then  the  Lamb 
was  slain  in  them  from  the  foundation  of  the  world. 
And  when  the  Lamb  Christ  was  manifest  in  the  flesh, 
they  that  were  in  this  outward  brutish  knowledge  and 
wisdom  below,  crucified  Christ  outwardly  without  the 
gates  of  Jerusalem.      And  after,  when   Christianity 
was  spread  up  and  down  in  the  world,  and  many  got 
an  outward  form  of  Christianity  and  denied  the  power 
and  got  into  this  brutish    outward  knowledge  and 
wisdom  below,  they  crucified   to   themselves  Christ 
afresh,  as  in  Hebrews  vi.  6." 1    The  Apostle  Paul  writes, 
"It  pleased  God  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me."   G-al.  i.  10. 
"Christ  liveth  in  me."   G-al.  xi.  20.     "God  sent  the 
spirit  of  his  son  iuto  your  hearts."   G-al.  iv.  6.     And 
John  declares,  "He  that  hath  the  son  hath  life,  and  he 
that  hath  not  the  son  of  God  hath  not  life."  1  John 
v.  12. 

William  Penn,  in  his  "  Christian  Quaker,"  writes 
concerning  "the  Light  of  Christ  within;  the  great 
principle  of  God  in  man,  the  root  and  spring  of  divine 
life  and  knowledge  in  the  soul ;  that  by  which  salva- 
tion is  effected  for  man,  and  which  is  the  characteris- 
tic of  the  people  called  Quakers,  their  faith  and  testi- 
mony to  the  world."  And  in  his  "Rise  and  Progress 
of  the  People  called  Quakers,"  he  speaks  of  "  their 
fundamental  principle,  which  is  the  corner-stone  of 


1  Works  of  G.  Fox,  Am.  ed.  1831,  Vol.  VI.  p.  448. 
11*  IV  — Z 


126  THE    DIVINE    BEING. 

their  fabric,"  —  "  the  light  of  CJirist  within  as  God's  gift 
for  man's  salvation." 

This  doctrine  of  the  early  Friends  is  thus  contro- 
verted by  Joseph  John  Gurney :  "  The  misinterpreta- 
tion which  I  wish  to  notice,  is  that  of  certain  writers 
who  appear  to  suppose  that  because  Christ  is  called 
the  light  {i.  e.  the  enlightener),  he  is  therefore  to  be 
identified  with  the  influence  which  he  bestows ;  in 
short,  that  the  light  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  heart 
of  man  is  itself  actually  Christ.  The  obvious  tendency 
of  this  mistake  is  to  deprive  the  Saviour  of  his  per- 
sonal attributes,  and  to  reduce  him  to  the  rank  of  a 
principle"  Yet  Gurney  has  himself  asserted,  that 
"  Where  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  is,  even  in  its  smallest 
measure,  there  is  Christ." 

A  favorite  text  of  the  early  Friends  was  that  passage 
of  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  (chap.  i.  v.  27,) 
where  he  speaks  of  "this  mystery  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, which  is  Christ  in  you  the  hope  of  glory."  Joseph 
John  Gurney  refers  to  it  as  follows :  "  The  words, 
'  Christ  in  you,'  are  often  recited  by  mistake  as  '•Christ 
within,'  and  these  expressions  are  sometimes  used 
amongst  us  as  a  synonym  for  the  light  of  the  spirit 
of  Christ  in  the  heart,  a  view  which  some  have  imagined 
to  be  supported  by  the  apostle's  treating  the  whole 
subject  as  a  'mystery.'  Hence  it  necessarily  follows 
that  the  light  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  in  the  heart  is  the 
same  as  Christ  himself,  and  is  represented  as  the  hope 
of  glory.  The  plain  fact,  however,  appears  to  be  that 
the  mystery  of  which  the  apostle  is  speaking,  is  that 
of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  a  subject  which 
had  been  typically  shadowed  forth  to  the  Jews,  but 
had  been  totally  concealed  from  the  Gentiles,  kept 
secret   since   the  world  began,  but  was   now  made 


THE    DIVINE    BEING.  127 

known  to  the  saints,  and  without  controversy  great  is 
the  mystery  of  godliness."1 

The  application  of  the  term  principle  to  the  seed  or 
life  of  God  in  the  soul,  appears  to  have  "been  particu- 
larly objectionable  to  Joseph  John  Gurney,  as  shown 
by  the  passages  already  quoted.  In  another  passage 
addressed  to  those  Friends  in  Baltimore,  whom  he 
improperly  calls  the  followers  of  Elias  Hicks,  he 
alludes  to  the  early  Friends,  and  says:  "Alas  that 
any  of  their  descendants  should  have  forsaken  the 
Rock  of  their  salvation,  and  should  have  reduced  the 
Saviour  of  men,  in  their  estimation  to  the  rank  of  a 
mere  'principle  or  influence  I  "  2  Yet,  strange  as  it  may 
appear,  the  learned  author  has  himself  made  a  similar 
application  of  the  term,  as  shown  by  the  following 
quotations  :  "  Since  it  is  only  through  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  men  are  converted  and  sanc- 
tified, and  since  the  work  of  conversion  and  sanctifi- 
cation  is  plainly  attributed  to  the  power  of  the  Son, 
as  well  as  to  that  of  the  Father,  it  can  be  no  matter 
of  surprise  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  usually  de- 
scribed as  the  spirit  of  God,  is  also  called  the  spirit  of 
Christ." 

"There  is  provided  for  us  in  the  economy  of  the 
grace  of  God,  an  invisible,  intangible,  though  not 
always  imperceptible,  influence,  an  illuminating  quick- 
ening principle,  by  which  degenerate  man  is  born  a 
second  time,  morally  changed  —  introduced  to  a  new 
condition  of  life,  and  gradually  restored  to  the  image 
of  his  Creator."3 

"Having  thus  examined  the  evidences  of  Scripture 

1  Brief  Remarks  on  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  pp.  9,  10. 

2  Letter  to  the  Followers  of  E.  Hicks,  Bait,  1840,  p.  17. 

3  Essays,  p.  445. 


128  SALVATION   BY  CHRIST. 

respecting  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  regenerating 
principle,  and  having  ascertained  the  channel  through 
which  alone  it  is  derived  to  mankind,  we  may  now 
direct  our  remarks  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  divine 
and  'personal  character."  l  *  *  *  * 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  these  passages  he  truly 
represents  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  the  same  as  the 
Spirit  of  Christ ;  this  Spirit  he  calls  an  invisible  in- 
fluence,—  a  quickening  principle,  —  a  regenerating 
principle, — and  then  he  proceeds  to  speak  of  his  per- 
sonal character. 

Notwithstanding  the  unprofitable  speculations  which 
he  borrowed  from  the  schools  of  theology,  it  appears 
that  in  seasons  of  devotion  he  was  favored  to  obtain 
a  clearer  and  more  sublime  view  of  the  Divine  nature. 
Thus  he  writes:  "While  the  Christian  rejoices  in  the 
distinct  characters  and  offices  of  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Spirit,  so  graciously  revealed  to  us  for  our 
instruction  and  edification,  he  probably  never  finds 
his  soul  bowed  down  with  so  deep  a  reverence,  or 
filled  with  so  pure  a  delight,  as  when  he  contemplates 
the  Almighty  as  an  ineffable  glory  —  an  incom- 
municable name  —  an  infinite  and  incomprehensible 
Unity."  * 

SALVATION   BY   CHRIST. 

§  5.  The  doctrine  of  salvation  by  Christ,  as  held 
by  the  early  Friends,  has  been  exhibited  in  the  fifth 
chapter  of  this  treatise,  and  may  be  recapitulated  as 
follows : 

1.  They  rejected  the  doctrines  of  imputative  right- 

1  Essays,  p.  457. 

2  A  Declaration  of  Faith,  p.  23 


SALVATION    BY    CHRIST.  129 

eousness  and  vicarious  satisfaction,  as  held  by  Trini- 
tarians, §  5  and  6. 

2.  They  held  the  Scriptural  doctrine,  that  Christ 
died  for  all  men,  (2  Cor.  v.  14,  15,)  —  not  however  to 
appease  the  wrath  of  God,  nor  to  satisfy  his  justice 
by  suffering  as  a  substitute  for  the  guilty; — but  "to 
bear  witness  to  the  truth,"  (John  xviii.  37,)  "leaving 
us  an  example  that  we  should  follow  his  steps; "  (1  Pet. 
ii.  21;)  and  as  an  evidence  of  his  love ;  "for  greater 
love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay  down  his 
life  for  his  friends."  (John  xv.  13.)  They  believed, 
moreover,  that  through  the  obedience  and  sufferings 
of  Christ  he  procured  for  his  Church  divine  favors 
and  spiritual  gifts.  (Acts  ii.  33.)  "Jesus  Christ,  in 
life,  doctrine,  and  death,  fulfilled  his  Father's  will, 
and  offered  up  a  most  satisfactory  sacrifice  ;  but  not 
to  pay  God,  or  help  him  as  otherwise  being  unable 
to  save  man."1  "As  it  was  the  main  design  of 
Christ's  life,  doctrines,  and  miracles,  to  call  men  to 
repentance,  faith,  and  obedience,  so  it  was  also  the 
great  end  of  his  sufferings  to  accomplish  the  same 
glorious  design."2  §  6. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  Reconciliation  as  taught  in  the 
writings  of  the  early  Friends,  —  is  a  change  wrought 
in  man,  taking  away  his  enmity,  and  "  causing  him  to 
grow  up  in  that  nature  and  life  which  God  loveth." 
§7 

4.  They  taught  that  man  "must  be  washed  and 
sanctified  before  he  can  be  justified;"  the  same  that 
sanctifies  him  justifies  him,  i.  e.,  "in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  (1  Cor. 


1  Perm's  Select  Works,  p.  22.         2  Life  of  R.  Claridge,  445. 

X2 


130  SALVATION   BY    CHE1ST. 

vi.  11.)     To  be  justified  signifies  "  a  being  made  just, 
and  not  merely  imputed  such."1  §  8. 

5.  They  maintained  that  "the  blood  of  the  Kew 
Covenant  is  the  life  of  Christ  Jesus,  who  saith,  '  ex- 
cept ye  eat  my  flesh  and  drink  my  blood  ye  have  no 
life  in  you."  2  "This  blood  is  known  and  felt  within, 
to  wash  and  purge  the  conscience,  for  Christ  as  he  is 
within,  is  not  without  his  blood  which  is  spiritual."  3 
Redemption  is  by  the  "blood"  of  the  Son  of  God, — 
"  by  his  life,  by  his  power,  by  his  nature  sown  in  the 
vessel,  and  transforming  the  vessel  into  its  own  like- 
ness."4 §  9. 

6.  They  taught  that  God  "  hath  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  hath  given  his  only  Son  (a  Light)  that  who- 
soever believeth  on  him  should  be  saved." 

"As  many  as  resist  not  this  light,  but  receive  the 
same,  in  them  is  produced  a  holy,  pure,  and  spiritual 
birth,  bringing  forth  holiness,  righteousness,  purity, 
and  all  those  blessed  fruits  which  are  acceptable  to 
God  :  by  which  hoi}7  birth,  to  wit,  Jesus  Clirist  formed 
within  us,  and  working  his  works  in  us,  as  we  are 
sanctified,  so  we  are  justified  in  the  sight  of  God."5 
This  innocent,  lamb-like  nature  being  oppressed 
with  evil  and  grieved  with  iniquity,  has  been  referred 
to,  metaphorically,  as  "a  lamb  slain  from  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world."6  §  10.  And  those  who  "fall 
away,"  after  having  "tasted  the  good  word  of  God," 
are  said  to  "  crucify  to  themselves  the  Son  of  God 
afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame."  (Heb.  vi.  6.) 


1  Barclay's  Apology,  Prop.  VII.  \  7.  2  G.  Fox,  Works,  V.  363-4. 
8  Barclay's  Works,  p.  10.  *  1.  Pennington,  I.  610. 

6  Barclay's  Apology,  Prop.  V.  and  VII. 
6  Penn's  Select  Works,  pp.  262-266. 


SALVATION   BY    CHRIST.  131 

7.  "  Christ  Jesus,"  writes  Geo.  Fox,  "tasted  death 
for  every  man,  and  shed  his  blood  for  all  men,  and  is 
the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only, 
but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  According 
as  John  the  Baptist  testified  of  him  when  he  said, 
"Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins 
of  the  world."  *  *  *  *  "He  it  is  that  is  now  come 
and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may 
know  him  that  is  true,  and  he  rules  in  our  hearts  by 
his  law  of  love  and  life."  &C.1  *  *  *  * 

Joseph  John  Gurney  held  the  doctrines  of  impu- 
tative righteousness  and  vicarious  satisfaction,  as  the 
following  extracts  will  show,  viz. :  "  Such  was  the 
righteousness  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  such  is 
the  righteousness  which  through  faith  is  imputed  to 
the  Christian.  A  very  slight  degree  of  reflection  on 
the  divine  nature  and  infinite  dignity  of  the  Son  of 
God,  as  well  as  on  the  perfections  of  his  human  char- 
acter, may  serve  to  convince  us  that  as,  on  the  one 
hand,  he  was,  on  account  of  his  spotless  innocence, 
entirely  suited  to  be  a  sacrifice  for  sin ;  so  on  the 
other  hand  his  fulfilment  of  the  whole  moral  law, 
and  more  especially  his  obedience  unto  death,  were 
infinitely  meritorious  in  the  sight  of  God  the  Father. 
When,  therefore,  we  read  that  the  righteousness  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  imputed  to  the  believer,  we  may  reason- 
ably understand  such  a  doctrine  to  import  that  we 
are  not  only  saved  through  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ,  but  rewarded  through  his  merits.  Our  sinful- 
ness may  properly  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  Christ,  be- 
cause when  he  underwent  the  penalty  which  that  sin- 
fulness demanded,  he  was  dealt  with  as  if  he  had  been 

1  G  Fox'  Letter  to  Gov.  of  Barbadoes. 


132  SALVATION    BY    CHRIST. 

himself  the  sinner  ;  and  it  is,  I  apprehend,  on  a  per- 
fectly analogous  principle  that  his  righteousness  is 
said  to  be  imputed  to  us  ;  because  through  the  bound- 
less mercy  of  God,  we  are  permitted  to  reap  the  fruits 
of  it.  We  are  regarded  as  if,  like  him,  we  were 
absolutely  guiltless,  and  are  therefore  delivered  from 
everlasting  punishment.  We  are  graciously  accepted, 
as  if  like  him  we  had  meritoriously  fulfilled  the  whole 
law  of  God,-  and  are  therefore  rewarded  with  never- 
ending  felicity.  Thus  it  is,  that,  in  consequence  of  his 
union  through  faith  with  Jesus,  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  the  Christian  is  not  only  protected  from  the 
pains  of  hell,  but  is  in  possession  of  a  well-grounded 
claim  on  the  jo}'S  of  heaven."  l 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  this  passage,  the  salva- 
tion and  eternal  felicity  of  the  soul  are  made  to 
depend,  not  on  its  moral  fitness  or  spiritual  condition, 
but  on  the  belief  that  the  punishment  due  to  sin  has 
been  inflicted  on  a  substitute,  and  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  that  substitute  is  imputed  to  the  believer. 

This  doctrine  is  also  avowed  in  the  following  quo- 
tations, viz.:  "The  Christian's  hope  of  deliverance 
from  eternal  death  is  founded  on  the  glorious  doc- 
trine, that  a  ransom  has  been  offered  for  his  soul, 
by  a  Saviour  of  infinite  dignity  and  power;  and  he 
anticipates  the  boon  of  everlasting  felicity,  not  as 
the  reward  of  his  own  polluted  ivorks,  but  as  the  just 
and  necessary  consequence  of  a  righteousness  imputed 
to  the  believer,  the  perfect  righteousness  of  Him 
who  is  not  only  man  but  God."2 

" Behold  the  glorious  partner  of  the  Father's 
throne  freely  opening  his  bosom  to  the  vials  of  his 

1  Essays  on  Christianity,  437. 

2  Biblical  Notes,  363. 


SALVATION   BY    CHRIST.  133 

wrath,  groaning  and  bleeding  on  the  cross  in  the 
nature  of  man,  and  bearing  in  his  own  body  on  the 
tree  the  penalty  of  the  sins  of  mankind."  *  *  *  * 
"Let  us  call  to  mind,  that  in  that  hour  of  unutter- 
able desertion  the  righteous  vengeance  of  God  against 
a  guilty  world  was  poured  forth  upon  the  innocent 
substitute." l 

Here  again,  justice  towards  J.  J.  Gurney  requires 
the  exhibition  of  sentiments  from  another  of  his 
works,  not  consistent  with  the  last  two  quotations, 
but  far  more  satisfactoiy,  viz.:  "There  is  nothing  in 
Scripture  which  in  the  least  degree  supports  the  no- 
tion that  our  Heavenly  Father  is  naturally  implaca- 
ble, and  that  his  wrath  was  appeased  by  the  Sacri- 
fice of  an  innocent  victim.  While  the  prevalence 
of  bloody  sacrifices  among  the  heathen  nations  in  all 
ages  of  the  world  plainly  indicates  the  feeling  that 
without  an  atonement  there  is  no  forgiveness  of  sin, 
and  while  it  affords  an  evidence  of  some  original 
revelation  on  the  subject,  the  vulgar  notion  that  a 
wrathful  deity  is  by  this  method  rendered  placable  re- 
ceives no  countenance  from  Christianity."2 

Yet,  in  still  another  of  his  works,  he  speaks  of 
"those  who  know  that  God  is  their  reconciled  Father, 
and  that  Jesus  has  bought  them  with  the  precious 
price  of  his  own  blood;"3  which  seems  to  imply 
that  the  Father  required  the  shedding  of  that  blood 
in  order  to  reconcile  him  to  man ;   whereas  the  true 

1  Essay  on  Love  to  God,  English  ed.  pp.  40,  45,  quoted  in  Ap- 
peal for  Ancient  Doctrines  of  Friends,  Phila.  1847,  by  Orthodox 
Yearly  Meeting.  The  two  passages  here  quoted  are  omitted  in 
an  American  edition. 

2  Portable  Evidence  of  Christianity,  154. 
8  Essays  on  Christianity,  465. 

12 


134  SALVATION"   BY    CHKIST. 

Scriptural  doctrine  is,  that  "God  was  in  Christ  re- 
conciling the  world  unto  himself."  The  change  by 
which  reconciliation  is  effected,  must  be  wrought  in 
man;  there  can  be  no  change  in  the  Deity. 

"Jesus  Christ,"  writes  J.  J.  Gurney,  "was  a  vica- 
rious sufferer,  because  his  death  on  the  cross  was 
graciously  undergone  by  him,  and  as  graciously  ac- 
cepted by  the  Father,  in  the  place  of  that  everlasting 
death  to  which  all  men  would  otherwise  have  been 
exposed  as  the  certain  punishment  and  legitimate 
consequence  of  sin." 

Again  he  writes,  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  being 
"ordained  by  the  Father  himself,  as  the  means  through 
which  in  his  own  infinite  knowledge  and  wisdom,  he 
saw  fit  to  provide  for  the  satisfaction  of  his  justice, 
and  at  the  same  time  for  the  pardon  and  restoration 
of  a  lost  and  sinful  race  of  his  creatures."1 

William  Penn  writes  as  follows,  concerning  "The 
absurdities  that  unavoidably  follow  the  comparison 
of  this  doctrine  with  the  sense  of  scripture." 

"1.  That  God  is  gracious  to  forgive,  and  yet  'tis 
impossible  for  him,  unless  the  debt  be  fully  satisfied. 

"2.  That  the  finite  and  impotent  creature  is  more 
capable  of  extending  mercy  and  forgiveness  than 
the  infinite  and  omnipotent  creator. 

"3.  That  God  so  loved  the  world  he  gave  his  only 
Son  to  save  it;  and  yet  that  God  stood  off  in  high 
displeasure,  and  Christ  gave  himself  to  God  as  a 
complete  satisfaction  to  his  offended  justice:  with 
many  more  such  like  gross  consequences  that  might 
be  drawn."3 


1  Essays  on  Christianity,  pp.  42o,  427. 

3  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken,  Select  Works,  p.  1G. 


SALVATION    BY    CHRIST.  135 

Concerning  Justification  and  Sanctification,  J.  J. 
Gurney  writes  as  follows:  "From  these  premises  it 
follows,  that,  in  the  order  of  the  grace  of  God,  justifi- 
cation precedes  sanctification ,  and  that  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  by  which  the  ungodly  are  justified,  has  re- 
spect in  a  very  pre-eminent  manner  to  the  atonement 
which  has  been  made  for  the  sins  of  the  world." 
*  *  *  *  "While  however  the  justification  of  the  sin- 
ner through  faith  in  a  crucified  Redeemer  precedes 
the  work  of  sanctification.  its  close  and  inseparable 
connection  with  that  work  is  evinced  by  the  fact, 
that  in  the  economy  of  God's  spiritual  government, 
this  veiy  faith  is  the  constituted  means  through 
which  we  obtain  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit."1 

Again  he  says:  "Man  by  nature  is  a  child  of 
wrath,  laboring  under  the  curse  of  the  law  —  the 
awful  sentence  of  eternal  death.  What  then  can  be 
conceived  more  adapted  to  this  need  than  justifica- 
tion—  a  plenary  remission  of  all  his  sins  through  the 
atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  a  free  acceptance  of 
him  as  righteous,  for  the  sake  of  a  righteous  Saviour? 
Here  he  finds  reconciliation  with  a  God  of  Justice, 
deliverance  from  condemnation  and  eternal  punish- 
ment, and  a  well-founded  hope  of  immortal  bliss. 
The  utmost  claims  of  the  law  are  satisfied;  the  holi- 
ness of  the  Creator  is  more  than  ever  manifested; 
and  the  broken-hearted  sinner  reposes  in  peace,  on 
the  bosom  of  infinite  mercy.  In  himself,  indeed,  as 
a  transgressor  from  his  birth,  he  is  vile  and  polluted, 
but  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  sprinkled  on  his  heart,  his 
conscience  is  purged  from  every  dead  work,  and 
having  obtained  an  interest  in  the  Saviour  of  men, 

1  Essays  on  Christianity,  p.  505. 


136  SALVATION    BY    CHRIST. 

he  wears  a  robe  of  righteousness  in  which  there  is 
no  spot."1 

From  this  it  appears,  that  he,  who  is  in  himself  vile 
and  polluted,  may  nevertheless  wear  a  robe  of  right- 
eousness; but  Geo.  Fox  writes:  "So  far  as  a  man  is 
sanctified,  so  far  as  he  is  justified  and  no  farther."2 

And  Barclay  soys:  "The  manner  and  way  whereby 
his  [Christ's]  righteousness  and  obedience,  death  and 
sufferings  without,  become  profitable  unto  us,  and 
made  ours,  is  by  receiving  him  and  becoming  one 
with  him  in  our  hearts,  embracing  and  entertaining 
that  holy  seed,  which  as  it  is  embraced  and  entertained, 
becometh  a  holy  birth  in  us,  which  in  Scripture  is 
called,  Christ  formed  within;  Christ  within  the  hope 
of  glory.      Gal.  iv.  19;   Coloss.  i.  27." 3 

Joseph  John  Gurney,  commenting  on  the  dis- 
course of  our  Saviour,  concerning  eating  his  flesh  and 
drinking  his  blood,  (John  vi.  31—32  and  47-48,)  says: 
"Hence  it  follows  that  the  bread  which  Christ  gives 
to  eat  is  his  flesh  which  he  offered  upon  the  cross  for 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  As  eating  the  bread  of 
life  is  identical  with  believing  in  Christ,  the  incarnate 
Son  of  God,  so  eating  his  flesh  is  identical  with  such 
a  belief  in  him  as  is  especially  directed  to  his  aton- 
ing sacrifice.  Our  Lord's  meaning  becomes  yet  more 
indisputable  when  he  pursues  his  use  of  this  expres- 
sive figure,  and  adds  to  the  eating  of  his  flesh  the 
drinking  of  his  blood:  'Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except 
ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.     He  that  eateth  my 


1  Portable  Evidence,  Phila.,  1856,  pp.  163,  1G4. 

2  Works  of  George  Fox,  III.  450. 

8  Truth  cleared  of  Calumnies,  Barclay's  Works,  p.  19. 


SALVATION    BY    CHRIST.  137 

flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  dwelleth  in  me  and  I  in 
him,'  ver.  53  to  56.  That  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  here  spoken  of  in  relation  to  his  incarna- 
tion and  atoning  Sacrifice,  is  made  abundantly  clear 
by  the  comparison  of  all  the  other  passages  in  the 
Kew  Testament,  and  especially  in  the  writings  of 
this  apostle,  in  which  mention  is  made  of  that  flesh 
or  of  that  blood.  These  passages  are  numerous,  and 
on  a  careful  examination  of  them,  it  will  be  found 
that  the  flesh  always  means  his  human  body  —  that 
body  which  was  born,  died,  and  rose  again — and  that 
his  blood  always  means  his  very  blood,  —  which  was 
his  natural  life,  and  which  was  naturally  shed  on  the 
cross  for  the  remission  of  sins."1  "  Those  only  can 
be  truly  said  to  'eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man 
and  drink  his  blood,'  whose  whole  reliance  for  salva- 
tion is  placed  upon  him,  as  the  sacrifice  for  sin  ;  and 
these  are  they  who  receive  'the  Spirit  that  quicken- 
eth' — who  dwell  in  Christ  and  know  Christ  to  dwell 
in  them  —  who  through  the  Spirit  are  made  alive 
unto  God  in  this  world,  and  therefore  live  forever  in 
the  world  to  come."  John  vi.  53-03. 2 

If  spiritual  life  depends  upon  eating  the  flesh  and 
drinking  the  blood  of  Christ, — and  those  only  can 
partake  of  it  whose  whole  reliance  is  placed  upon  him  as 
the  sacrifice  for  sin,  — what  becomes  of  those  wrho  have 
never  heard  of  that  sacrifice  ?  Yet  Joseph  John 
Gurney  admits  that  even  these,  when  they  believe  in 
and  obey  the  Light,  are  "partakers  in  their  measure 


1  Brief  Remarks  on  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  pp.  13,  14. 

2  Essays  on  Christianity,  50G. 

12*  2A 


138  SALVATION   BY    CHRIST. 

and  according  to  their  capacity  in  the  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  l 

How  much  more  simple  and  consistent  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  early  Fiiends  on  this  point  as  expressed 
by  Barclay:  "The  communion  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  is  inward  and  spiritual,  which  is  the  par- 
ticipation of  his  flesh  and  blood  by  which  the  inward 
man  is  daily  nourished  in  the  hearts  of  those  in  whom 
Christ  dwells." 

"The  body  then  of  Christ  which  believers  partake 
of  is  spiritual  and  not  carnal,  and  his  blood  which  they 
drink  of  is  pure  and  heavenly  and  not  human  or  ele- 
mentary, as  Augustine  also  affirms  of  the  body  of 
Christ;  Tractnt.     Psalm  xcviii." ■ 

The  early  Friends  believed  that  Jesus  Christ  the 
head  of  the  church,  and  the  saints  his  members,  in 
their  heavenly  state,  are  not  in  carnal  but  in  spiritual 
bodies.  Joseph  John  Ghirney  writes  as  follows:  "He 
[man]  has  within  him  a  never-dying  spirit;  and  even 
that  part  of  him  which  is  destined  to  moulder  in  the 
grave,  shall  in  the  end  be  found  the  seed  of  a  spiritual 
body,  and  shall  be  clothed  with  incorruption  and  im- 
mortality." "  The  man  who  sleeps  in  the  dust  of 
the  earth  shall  be  quickened  —  shall  be  raised  from  a 
state  of  death  —  shall  stand  alive  before  the  judg- 
ment-seat of  the  Almighty."  3  "Now  it  is  in  reveal  d 
religion,  and  there  only,  that  blind  and  erring  man 
receives  an  illumination  exactly  proportioned  to  the 
depths  and  completeness  of  his  ignorance."  *  *  *  * 
"There  he  is  taught  the  lesson  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  of  judg- 

1  J.  J.  G's.  Declaration,  quoted  in  g  1  of  this  chapter. 

2  Apology  XIII.  I  2.      3  Essays  on  Christianity,  pp.  193,  187. 


THE    DOCTRINES    OF    ELIAS    HICKS.  139 

ment  to  come."  "As  it  relates  to  the  faithful  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  clearly 
forms  a  part  of  the  scheme  of  redemption."1 

"\Vm.  Perm,  in  reply  to  the  Bishop  of  Cork,  says  : 
"  We  have  indeed  been  negative  to  the  gross  conceit 
of  people  concerning  the  rising  of  this  carnal  body 
we  carry  about  us,  which  better  agrees  with  the  Al- 
coran of  Mahomet,  than  the  gospel  of  Christ.  But 
that  there  is  a  resurrection  of  the  just  and  unjust,  to 
rewards  and  punishments,  we  have  ever  believed. 
And  indeed,  we  cannot  but  wonder  that  any  should 
be  displeased  with  us,  for  being  pleased  with  that 
which  God  is  pleased  to  give  us.  Bodies  we  shall 
have,  but  not  the  same,  says  the  Apostle,  and  so  be- 
lieves the  Quaker."  2 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  DOCTRINES  OF  ELIAS  HICKS 

In  America,  the  Society  of  Friends,  during  the 
first  quarter  of  this  century,  generally  held  the  views 
inculcated  by  Fox,  Penn,  Pennington,  and  Barclay, 
and  were  accustomed,  in  their  ministry,  to  lay  great 
stress  on  the  Grace  of  God,  or  Spirit  of  Christ  re- 
vealed in  the  soul,  as  the  efficient  cause  of  salvation. 
It  is  believed  that  the  ministry  and  writings  of  Job 
Scott  had  much  influence  in  promoting  this  spiritual 
view  of  Christianity;  and  Elias  Hicks,  who  began  his 
ministry  about  the  year  1775,  had  long  been  a  distin- 

1  Portable  Evidence,  pp.  160,  179.      2  Perm's  Select  Works,  827. 


140  THE    DOCTRINES    OF    ELIAS   HICKS. 

guished  advocate  of  the  same  doctrine.  He  Lad 
travelled  much  as  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  and  for 
more  than  forty  years  his  services  had  been  highly 
esteemed  throughout  the  Society,  there  -being  then 
little  or  no  opposition  to  his  religions  views.  "In 
declaring  what  he  believed  to  be  the  counsel  of  God, 
he  was  bold  and  fearless,  and  his  ministry,  though 
unadorned  with  the  embellishments  of  human  learn- 
ing, was  clear  and  powerful.  In  argument  he  was 
strong  and  convincing,  and  his  appeals  to  the  experi- 
ence and  convictions  of  his  hearers  were  striking  and 
appropriate."  '  In  private  life  he  was  a  bright  exam- 
ple of  the  Christian  virtues  ;  a  peace-maker,  a  friend 
to  the  poor,  and  especially  concerned  to  bear  an  un- 
compromising testimony  against  the  enslavement  and 
oppression  of  the  African  race. 

The  doctrinal  views  of  Elias  Hicks  have  been  di- 
versely understood  or  construed  by  different  indi- 
viduals according  to  the  point  of  view  from  which 
they  were  contemplated.  By  his  adversaries  he  was 
charged  with  holding  and  promulgating  doctrines  at 
variance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  while  on  the  other  hand  his  friends  main- 
tained, that  his  views  were  generally  in  accordance 
with  the  Scriptures  of  Truth,  and  with  the  writings 
of  the  early  Friends. 

A  fair  and  candid  investigation  of  this  subject 
requires  a  thorough  examination  of  his  writings  and 
acknowledged  discourses;  and  in  making  selec- 
tions to  illustrate  his  views,  a  due  regard  will  be  had 
to  the  context,  and  to  the  general  scope  of  his 
remarks. 


1  Testimony  of  Jericho  Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends. 


THE    DOCTRINES    OF    ELIAS    HICKS.  141 


IMMEDIATE    REVELATION. 

§  1.  It  has  been  shown  in  Chapter  L,  sections  9  and 
10,  that  according  to  the  writings  of  the  early  Frieuds 
there  is  "  an  evangelical  principle  of  light  and  life, 
wherewith  Christ  hath  enlightened  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world."1 

On  this  point,  Elias  Hicks  writes  as  follows :  "  God 
is  a  Spirit,  invisible  and  incomprehensible  to  every 
thing  but  spirit,  agreeably  to  the  doctrine  and  con- 
clusive argument  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  '  What  man 
knoweth  the  things  of  a  man  save  the  spirit  of  man 
which  is  in  him?  even  so,  the  things  of  God  knoweth 
no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God;'  and  again,  'the 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him;  neither  can 
he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually,'  and 
only  spiritually,  'discerned.'  It  therefore  necessarily 
follows  that  man,  with  all  the  wisdom  he  can  acquire, 
aided  by  human  science,  however  elaborately  studied, 
and  with  the  further  assistance  of  all  the  books  and 
writings  in  the  world,  if  void  of  immediate  divine 
revelation,  never  has  known,  nor  ever  can  know  God, 
in  relation  either  to  his  essence,  or  those  excellent 
attributes  which  are  in  correspondence  and  unison 
with  his  pure,  holy,  and  unchangeable  nature;  for 
that  which  may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest  within 
man,2  and  that  not  by  his  reasoning  powers,  but  by 
the  immediate  impression  and  unpremeditated  sen- 
sations which  the  immortal  spirit  of  man  feels  and 
sees,  by  being  brought  into  contact  with  and  under 
the  certain  and  self-evident  influence  of  the  Spirit  of 

1  Barclay's  Apology,  Prop.  VI.  2  Kom.  i  19. 

2A2 


142  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 

God  upon  it.  And  hence  a  man  is  enabled  to  attribute 
to  God  bis  due  only  from  sensible  and  self-evident 
experience."  l 

"Hence  the  necessity  of  every  individual  rallying 
to  tbe  standard,  the  light  within,  for  in  that  only  can 
we  as  a  people  unite  our  strength ;  that  being  our 
only  standard  principle  from  the  beginning;  and  if 
we  desert  that  or  add  anvthin^  to  it,  as  essential 
besides  good  works,  we  shall  become  a  broken  and 
divided  people,  and  must  remain  so  until  all  recur  to 
this  first  principle  as  our  only  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice ;  and  prove  by  our  fruits  that  we  are  led  and 
guided  by  it,  that  is,  by  our  just  and  righteous  works, 
doing  unto  all  others  as  we  would  that  others  should 
do  unto  us."  2 

THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 

§  2.  The  views  of  the  early  Friends  in  relation  to 
the  Scriptures  have  been  exhibited  in  Chapter  II.  of 
this  treatise.  They  believed  in  the  authenticity  and 
divine  authority  of  the  sacred  writings,  and  expressed 
a  willingness  that  "all  their  doctrines  and  practices 
should  be  tried  by  them."  Nevertheless,  "because 
they  are  only  a  declaration  of  the  fountain  and  not 
the  fountain  itself,  therefore  they  are  not  to  be 
esteemed  the  principal  ground  of  all  truth  and  knowl- 
edge, nor  yet  the  adequate  primary  rule  of  faith  and 
manners."  They  are  "a  secondary  rule,  subordinate 
to  the  spirit  from  which  they  have  all  their  excellency 
and  certainty."  3 

Elias  Ilicks  writes  as  follows:  "As  to  the  Scrip- 
tures of  Truth,  as  recorded  in  the  book  called  the 

1  Letters  of  E.  Ilicks,  New  York,  1834,  p.  25.      a  Ibid.  p.  180. 
8  Barclay's  Apology,  Prop.  III. 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  143 

Bible,  I  have  ever  believed  that  all  parts  of  them 
that  could  not  be  known  but  by  revelation,  were 
written  by  holy  men  as  they  were  inspired  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  could  not  be  known  through  any 
other  medium,  and  they  are  profitable  for  our  encour- 
agement, comfort  and  instruction,  in  the  very  way 
that  the  apostle  testifies ;  and  I  have  always  accounted 
them,  when  rightly  understood,  as  the  best  of  books 
extant.  I  have  always  delighted  in  reading  them,  in 
my  serious  moments,  in  preference  to  any  other  book, 
from  my  youth  up,  and  have  made  more  use  of  their 
contents  to  confirm  and  establish  my  ministerial  labors 
in  the  gospel  than  most  other  ministers  that  I  am 
acquainted  with.  But  at  the  same  time,  I  prize  that 
from  whence-  they  have  derived  their  origin,  much  higher 
than  I  do  them ;  as  *  that  for  which  a  thing  is  such, 
the  thing  itself  is  more  such.'  And  no  man,  I  con- 
ceive, can  know  and  rightly  profit  by  them,  but  by 
the  opening  of  the  same  inspiring  spirit  by  which  they 
were  written;  and  I  apprehend  I  have  read  them  as 
much  as  most  other  men,  and  few,  I  believe,  have 
derived  more  profit  from  them  than  I  have."  * 

In  another  letter  he  says:  "As  respects  the  Scrip- 
tures of  Truth,  I  have  highly  esteemed  them  from  my 
youth  up,  have  always  given  them  the  preference  to 
any  other  book,  and  have  read  them  abundantly  more 
than  any  other  book,  and  I  would  recommend  all  to 
the  serious  and  diligent  perusal  of  them.  And  I 
apprehend  I  have  received  as  much  comfort  and  in- 
struction from  them  as  any  other  man.  Indeed  they 
have  instructed  me  home  to  the  sure  unchangeable 
foundation  —  the  light  within,  or  spirit  of  truth,  the 

1  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  p.  215. 


144  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

only  gospel  foundation  that  leads  and  guides  into  all 
truth,  and  thereby  completes  man's  salvation,  which 
nothing  else  ever  has,  or  ever  can  do.  But  why  need 
I  say  these  things,  as  all  men  know  that  have  heard 
me,  that  I  confirm  my  doctrine  abundantly  from  their 
testimony:  and  I  have  always  endeavored  sincerely 
to  place  them  in  their  true  place  and  station,  but 
never  dare  exalt  them  above  what  they  themselves 
declare ;  and  as  no  spring  can  rise  higher  than  its 
fountain,  so  likewise  the  Scriptures  can  only  direct  to 
the  fountain  from  ivhence  they  originated — the  spirit  of 
truth  :  as  saith  the  apostle,  'The  things  of  God  know 
eth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God ; '  therefore  when 
the  Scriptures  have  directed  and  pointed  us  to  this 
light  within,  or  Spirit  of  Truth,  there  they  must  stop 
—  it  is  their  ultimatum — the  top  stone  of  what  they 
can  do.  And  no  other  external  testimony  of  men  or 
books  can  do  any  more.  And  Jesus,  in  his  last 
charge  to  his  disciples,  in  order  to  prevent  them  from 
looking  without  for  instruction  in  the  things  of  God, 
after  he  had  led  them  up  to  the  highest  pinnacle  that 
any  outward  evidence  could  effect,  certified  them  that 
this  light  within,  or  spirit  of  truth,  by  which  only 
their  salvation  could  be  effected,  dwelt  with  them  and 
should  be  in  them.  And  this  every  Christian  knows 
to  be  a  truth  ;  and  there  never  was  a  real  Christian 
made  b}7  any  other  power  than  this  spirit  of  truth ; 
and  everything  that  can  be  done  by  man  without  it, 
must  fail  of  effecting  his  salvation."  ■ 

These  passages,  written  in  the  year  1829,  may  be 
considered  as  expressing  the  settled  opinions  of  Elias 
Hicks  in  the  last  year  of  his  life.     It  is  much  to  be 


1  Answer  to  Six  Queries,  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  p.  227. 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  145 

regretted  that  in  some  letters  of  an  earlier  date,  writ- 
ten apparently  without  due  consideration,  and  in  the 
confidence  of  friendship,  (which  proved  to  be  mis- 
placed,) he  expressed  sentiments  apparently  at  vari- 
ance with  those  above  quoted. 

In  a  letter  to  Phebe  Willis,  dated  5th  mo.  19th, 
1818,  and  first  published  by  his  opponents  without  his 
consent,  the  following  passages  are  found  :  "  Among 
other  subjects  I  have  been  led,  I  trust  carefully  and 
candidly,  to  investigate  the  effect  produced  by  the 
book  called  the  Scriptures  since  it  has  borne  that 
appellation  ;  and  it  appears  from  a  comparative  view, 
to  have  been  the  cause  of  fourfold  more  harm  than 
good  to  Christendom,  since  the  apostles'  days,  and 
which  I  think  must  be  indubitably  plain  to  every 
faithful  honest  mind  that  has  investigated  her  historv 
free  from  the  undue  bias  of  education  and  tradition. 
Mark  the  beginning  of  the  apostasy.  When  the  pro- 
fessors of  Christianity  began  to  quarrel  with  and  sepa- 
rate from  each  other,  it  all  sprung  from  their  different 
views  and  different  interpretations  of  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  to  such  a  pikh  did  their  quarrels  arise,  as 
that  a  recourse  to  the  sword  was  soon  deemed  neces- 
sary to  settle  those  disputes.  And  the  strongest  party 
in  that  line  finding,  that  as  long  as  the  people  were  at 
liberty,  and  had  the  privilege  of  searching  the  Scriptures 
and  putting  their  own  interpretations  upon  them,  and 
making  them  their  rule,  diversity  of  opinion  and  dif- 
ferences would  increase,  this  led  the  strongest  party 
to  that  disagreeable  and  unchristian  alternative  of 
wresting  them  out  of  their  hands,  and  forbidding 
their  being  read  by  the  people  at  large.  And  this 
state  of  things  continued  for  many  years,  until  the 
beginning  of  the  Reformation  by  Martin  Luther.     It 

IV  — 13 


146  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

will  be  now  necessary  to  consider  whether  the  Scrip- 
tures were  in  any  wise  accessory  to  this  infant  begin- 
ning of  reformation  ?  I  think  it  is  clear  they  were 
not ;  but  as  Luther  and  his  adherents  gained  strength, 
they  began  to  shake  off  the  yoke  of  papal  oppression, 
and  among  other  things,  the  restriction  on  the  Scrip- 
tures was  taken  om,  and  every  citizen  that  joined  Lu- 
ther's party  had  the  privilege  of  reading  the  Scrip- 
tures at  his  pleasure.  And  what  was  the  result?  A 
diversity  of  sentiment  respecting  what  they  taught, 
which  soon  set  the  reformers  one  against  another  and 
produced  such  divisions  and  animosities  among  them 
that  recourse  was  again  had  to  the  sword  to  settle  dis- 
putes.  In  this  condition  things  continued  until  Geo. 
Fox  was  raised  up  to  bear  testimony  to  the  light  and 
spirit  of  truth  in  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men 
and  women  as  the  only  sure  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
both  in  relation  to  religious  and  moral  things,  and 
which  was  complete  and  sufficient  without  the  aid  of 
books  or  men,  as  his  doctrine  and  example  clearly 
evinces,  as  his  reformation  was  begun  and  carried  on 
without  the  necessary  aid  of  either."  *  *  *  *  "What 
I  have  written  has  been  done  in  scraps  of  time  that  I 
have,  as  it  were,  stolen  from  my  other  many  avoca- 
tions, without  any  time  to  copy  it,  or  give  it  much 
examination ;  therefore  I  hope  thou  wilt  excuse  the 
improprieties  that  may  have  escaped  my  notice,  be- 
lieving that  thou  wilt  be  able  to  apprehend  the  main 
drift  of  the  arguments,  and  be  willing  to  put  the  best 
construction  on  such  parts  as  may,  to  thee,  appear 
erroneous."1 

In   considering  this    ill-digested   letter,   the   query 
naturally  arises:    If  the  Scriptures   ''have  been  the 

1  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  pp.  43-50. 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTUKES.  147 

?ause  of  fourfold  more  harm  than  good  to  Christen- 
dom," why  was  the  "forbidding  their  being  read  by 
the  people  at  large,"  an  "unchristian"  act.  The  re- 
mark in  relation  to  the  Protestant  Reformation,  that 
the  Scriptures  were  not  "in  any  wise  accessory"  to 
its  beginning,  is  also  founded  in  mistake;  for  it  ap- 
pears that  the  New  Testament  was,  through  divine 
grace,  made  instrumental  to  enlighten  the  mind  of 
Luther  and  discover  to  him  the  errors  of  Romanism. 
As  to  George  Fox,  we  know  that  the  Bible  was  his 
constant  companion ;  his  writings  are  replete  with 
Scripture  texts,  and  probably  no  other  teacher  ever 
referred  more  constantly  to  the  sacred  volume.  It 
was  "his  frequent  advice  to  Friends,  to  keep  to 
Scripture  language,  terms,  words,  and  doctrines,  as 
taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  matters  of  faith,  re- 
ligion, controversy,  and  conversation,  and  not  to  be 
imposed  upon  and  drawn  into  unscriptural  terms,  in- 
vented bv  men  in  their  human  wisdom."1 

Justice  towards  Elias  Hicks  requires  that  we  should 
o-ive  due  weight  to  the  extenuating;  circumstances 
that  attended  the  writing  and  publication  of  his  let- 
ters to  Phebe  AVillis,  whom  he  regarded  as  a  cordial 
friend.  If  he  erred  in  writing  them,  how  much  more 
blameworthy  were  they,  who  gave  them  publicity 
without  his  consent ! 

He  stated  his  views  more  explicitly  in  a  letter  to 
Moses  Brown,  dated  3d  mo.  30th,  1825,  as  the  follow- 
ing passage  will  show,  viz.  :  "As  to  what  thou  sayest 
of  my  contradicting  myself,  by  saying  at  one  time, 
that  the  Scriptures  were  the  best  book,  and  at  another 
time,  that  it  does  more  hurt  than  good  ;  if  this  is, 
to  thee,  a  paradox,  it  is  one,  I  conceive,  thy  own  com- 

1  Works  of  G.  F.,  IV.  3. 


148  THE    HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 

mon  sense  and  every  day's  observation  would  easily 
solve.  For  it  is  my  candid  belief,  that  those  that 
hold  and  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  only  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  to  these  it  does  much  more  hurt 
than  good.  And  has  anything  tended  more  to  di- 
vide Christendom  into  sects  and  parties  than  the 
Scriptures  ?  and  by  which  so  many  cruel  and  bloody 
wars  have  been  promulgated.  And  yet  at  the  same 
time,  may  it  not  be  one  of  the  best  books,  if  rightly 
used  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  But,  if 
abused,  like  every  other  blessing,  it  becomes  a  curse. 
Therefore  to  these  it  always  does  more  hurt  than 
good ;  and  thou  knowest  that  these  comprehend  far 
the  greatest  part  of  Christendom."  ■ 

There  is,  however,  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that 
a  vast  amount  of  o*ood  has  been  derived  from  the 
proper  use  of  the  Scriptures:  if  evil  has  resulted 
from  their  abuse,  it  is  no  more  than  may  be  said  of 
c>thcr  precious  gifts  received  from  a  bountiful  Creator. 

A  number  of  passages  extracted  from  the  printed 
sermons  of  Elias  Hicks,  have  been  published  and 
circulated  by  his  adversaries,  most  of  which,  being 
separated  from  the  context,  give  an  erroneous  view 
of  his  religious  opinions.  Borne  of  these  extracts 
relating  to  the  Scriptures  are  here  subjoined,  together 
with  a  portion  of  the  context.  The  sentences  ex- 
tracted by  his  opponents  are  included  in  brackets,2 
viz.  : — 

1  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  pp.  174-5. 

■These  extracts  may  be  found  in  "A  Declaration,"  &c.,  pub- 
lished by  order  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  "Orthodox  Friends/1 
hela  in  Phila.,  in  tin-  year  1828.     For  a  refutation  of  the  chai 

contained    in    that    Declaration,    see   a   Review   by   Wm.  Gibbous, 
published  by  T.  E.  Chapman,  Philadelphia,  1847. 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  149 

"We  find,  that  although  these  things  are  so  plainly 
written  in  the  book  which  we  call  the  Bible,  yet  we 
feel  and  know  certainly  that  there  is  no  power  in  it 
to  enable  us  to  put  in  practice  what  is  therein  written. 
[One  would  suppose  that,  to  a  rational  mind,  the 
hearing  and  reading  of  the  instructive  parables  of 
Jesus  would  have  a  tendency  to  reform,  and  turn  men 
about  to  truth,  and  lead  them  on  in  it.  But  they  have 
no  such  effect."]"  In  the  following  paragraph  he  says: 
"  We  may  read  of  this ;  but  has  the  letter  ever  turned 
any  one  to  the  right  thing,  unless  the  light  opening  it 
to  the  understanding  has  helped  him  to  put  in  practice 
what  the  letter  dictates  ?  " 

The  meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  the 
speaker  is  evidently  the  same  as  thus  expressed  by 
Isaac  Pennington  :  "Life  cannot  be  received  from  the 
Scriptures,  but  only  from  Christ  the  fountain  thereof; 
no  more  cau  the  Scriptures  give  the  rule,  but  point 
to  the  fountain  of  the  same  life,  where  alone  the  rule 
of  life,  as  the  life  itself,  can  be  received.  The  Scrip- 
tures cannot  ingraft  into  Christ  nor  give  a  living  rule 
to  him  that  is  ingrafted;  but  he  that  hath  heard  the 
testimony  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  Christ,  and 
hath  come  to  him,  must  abide  in  him  and  wait  on 
him  for  the  writing  of  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life 
in  his  heart,  and  this  will  be  his  rule  from  the  law 
of  sin  and  death,  even  unto  the  land  of  life."1 

Another  garbled  quotation  from  the  Sermons  of 
Elias  Hicks,  when  united  with  a  portion  of  the  con- 
text, reads  as  follows  : — 

"O  that  the  spirit  that  dwelt  in  David  might  dwell 


1  Works  of  I.  Pennington,  London,  1761,  Vol.  I.  p.  268. 
13*  IV— 2  B 


150  THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

in  us  ;  that,  from  a  sense  of  our  impotence  and  weak- 
ness, our  prayers  might  ascend  like  his  ;  'Lord  show 
me  my  secret  faults.'  And  what  are  these  faults 
that  are  so  various  and  so  many?  Why,  some  are 
led  away  to  the  worship  of  images  by  being  deceived 
and  turned  aside  by  tradition  and  books;  they  wor- 
ship other  gods  beside  the  true  God.  [They  have 
been  so  bound  up  in  the  letter,  that  they  think  they 
must  attend  to  it  to  the  exclusion  of  everything  else. 
Here  is  an  abominable  idol  worship  of  a  thing  with- 
out any  life  at  all,  —  a  dead  monument !]  Oh  !  that 
our  minds  might  be  enlightened,  —  that  our  hearts 
might  be  opened,  —  that  we  might  know  the  differ- 
ence between  thing  and  thing.  Most  of  the  worship 
in  Christendom  is  idolatry,  dark  and  blind  idolatry; 
for  all  outward  worship  is  so,  —  it  is  a  mere  worship 
of  images.  For  if  we  make  an  image  merely  in  im- 
agination, it  is  an  idol." — Phila.  Sermons,  pp.  129, 130. 

In  this  passage  the  censure  intended  to  be  con- 
veyed was  not  against  the  use,  but  the  abuse  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  follow- 
ing quotation  from  Pennington.  "The}'  run  to  the 
Scriptures  with  that  understanding  which  is  out  of 
the  truth,  and  which  never  shall  be  let  into  the  truth; 
and  so  being  not  able  to  reach  and  comprehend  the 
truth  as  it  is,  they  study,  they  invent,  they  imagine 
a  meaning;  they  form  a  likeness,  a  similitude  of  the 
truth  as  near  as  they  can,  and  this  must  go  for  the 
truth  ;  and  this  they  honor  and  bow  before  as  the 
will  of  God;  which  being  not  the  will  of  God,  but  a 
likeness  of  their  own  inventing  and  forming,  they 
worship  not  God,  they  honor  not  the  Scriptures,  but 
they  honor  and  worship  the  work  of  their  own  brain. 


THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES.  151 

And  every  scripture  which  man  hath  thus  formed  a 
meaning  out  of,  and  hath  not  read  in  the  true  and 
living  light  of  God's  eternal  Spirit,  he  hath  made  an 
image  by,  ne  hath  made  an  idol  of;  and  the  respect 
and  honor  he  gives  this  meaning  is  not  a  respect 
and  honor  given  to  God,  but  to  his  own  image,  to 
his  own  idol."1 

The  following  passage  from  a  sermon  of  Elias 
Hicks  has  been  selected  by  his  opponents  to  show 
that  he  and  his  friends  assert  "that  the  direction  of 
our  Lord  to  search  the  Scriptures  is  not  correct," 
viz.:  "JN'ow  the  book  we  read  in  says,  'Search  the 
Scriptures.'  But  this  is  incorrect;  we  must  all  see  it 
is  incorrect;  because  we  have  all  reason  to  believe 
they  read  the  Scriptures,  and  hence  they  accused 
Jesus  of  being  an  impostor."2  The  remainder  of  the 
paragraph  was  withheld  ;  it  reads  as  follows  :  "  They 
were  more  intent  upon  reading  the  Scriptures  than 
any  other  people  under  heaven.  They  read  them, 
thinking  that  through  them  they  should  become  wise 
by  the  letter." 

The  learned  Adam  Clark  affirms,  that  the  text 
here  referred  to  should  be  translated,  "Ye  search 
the  Scriptures  diligently;"  and  adds:  "Perhaps  the 
Scriptures  were  never  more  diligently  searched  than 
at  that  very  time." 

Barclay  says:  "That  place  may  be  taken  in  the  in- 
dicative mood,  'Ye  search  the  Scriptures;'  which  in- 
terpretation the  Greek  word  will  bear;  and  so  Pasor 
translateth  it :  which,  by  the  reproof  following,  seem- 
eth  also  to  be  the  more  genuine  interpretation;  as 
Cvrillus  Ions;  ago  hath  observed."3 

1  I.  Pennington's  Works,  I.  13.  2  Phila.  Sermon,  p.  314. 

8  Apology,  Prop.  III.  §  7. 


152  DOCTRINES    OF    ELIAS    HICKS. 


THE    ORIGINAL   AND    PRESENT    STATE    OF    MAX. 

§  3.  By  reference  to  the  third  chapter  of  this 
treatise,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  commonly  received 
doctrine  of  original  sin  was  not  held  by  the  early 
Friends. 

In  accordance  with  their  views,  Elias  Hicks  writes 
as  follows:  "As  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  ac- 
cording to  the  acceptation  of  some  professors  of 
Christianity,  that  we  are  under  the  curse  for  the 
transgression  of  our  first  parents,  I  abhor  the  idea, 
as  it  casts  a  great  indignity  on  the  divine  character 
to  think  that  a  gracious  and  merciful  God  should  con« 
demn  us  for  an  act  that  was  wholly  out  of  our  powei 
to  avoid!  I  consider  it  very  little  short  if  any,  of 
blasphemy  againsl  God.  For  1  have  never  felt  my- 
Belf  under  condemnation  for  any  sin  but  my  own 
neither  have  1  felt  any  justification  for  any  righteous- 

ness  but  what    has   been  wrought  in  nie   by  the  grace 

of  God :  believing  with  the  apostle,  that   "bygn 
we  are  saved  through   faith,   and   that   not  of  our- 
selves, it  is  the  gift  of  God,  not  of  works  lesl  any 
man  should  boast;"  that  is,  doI   any  works  of  our 
own,  "for  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ 

Jesus  unt(  >d  works,  which   God   hath    before  or- 

dained that  we  should  walk  in  them."  ' 

In  a  sermon,  at  Pine  Street  Meeting.  Philadelphia, 
Elias  Hicks  is  reported  to  have  Bpokeo  as  follows, 
viz.:  u He  [the  Most  High]  gives  as  tin'  grace  of  re- 
pentance, and  enables  us  so  t<>  walk  as  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  him,  and  gain  a  greater  establishment  in 
himself,  and   in    the   truth,  than  when  we    first   came 

1  Letters  of  B.  Hicks,  p.  *213. 


DOCTRINES    OF    ELIAS    HICKS.  153 

out  of  his  creatine:  hands.  For  although  man  was 
made  pure  and  without  defilement,  —  for  lie  declares 
that  all  that  he  made  'was  very  good,'  —  yet  man 
had  no  virtue,  for  he  had  no  knowledge :  we  hring 
no  true  knowledge  into  the  world  with  us.  But  God, 
in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness,  saw  that  the 
onlv  wav  in  which  man  could  rise  and  he  a  commu- 
meant  with  Him,  was  to  place  him  in  a  state  of  pro- 
bation, and  furnish  him  with  means  whereby  he 
might  go  on  in  the  warfare  that  this  state  of  proba- 
tion opened  in  his  soul.  For  having  endued  his 
creature  man  with  propensities  both  of  body  and 
mind,  these  propensities  tempted  him  to  turn  aside 
from  the  will  of  his  Creator.  Here  was  immediately 
a  warfare  begun  —  God  was  on  one  side,  and  every- 
thing o-ood  was  united  with  him  and  in  him.  The 
creature  —  the  rational  creature,  as  it  was  united  to 
the  animal  body,  was  of  the  earth  and  therefore 
earthy.  Aja  the  apostle  say-:  'The  first  man  is  of 
the  earth,  earthy:  the  second  man,'  that  is  the  birth 
of  God  in  the  soul,  is  spiritual,  livery  one  that  is 
born  of  God  has  this  inward  birth;  as  we  read,  "that 
was  not  first  which  is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is 
natural;  and  afterward  that  which  is  spiritual.'  And 
here  now,  this  has  been  the  experience  of  every 
rational  soul  under  heaven :  and  it  is  the  only  me- 
dium whereby  we  can  ever  be  united  again  to  God. 
And  if  man  had  not  fallen,  as  we  come  into  the 
world  without  knowledge  and  capacity  to  do  any- 
thing, though  innocent:  so  we  must  know  another 
birth — a  birth  of  the  immortal  spirit,  which  is  as 
invisible  as  God  himself.  We  must  come  to  witness 
a  birth  of  the   Spirit,  a  second  birth,  as  Jesus  de- 

i^  B2 


154  ON   THE    DIVINE    BEING. 

clared  to  Kicodemus,  'Except  a  man  be  born  again  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.'"1 

ON   THE   DIVINE    BEING. 

§  4.  It  has  been  shown  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 
this  treatise,  that  the  early  Friends  rejected  the  com- 
monly received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  distinct 
and  separate  personality  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  that  they  acknowledged  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  as  taught  in  the  Scriptures.2 

In  order  to  institute  a  comparison  between  their 
doctrines  and  those  of  Elias  Hicks,  the  following  se- 
lection has  been  made  from  his  writings  and  reported 
discourses. 

uThe  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  held  by  many 
professing  Christians,  I  also  consider  a  weak  and 
vulgar  error:  that  of  three  distinct  persons  in  one 
God,  and  that  each  of  these  persons  is  whole  God, 
as,  I  think,  is  inserted  in  some  of  the  confessions  of 
faith.  As  I  believe  there  cannot  be  a  greater  absurd- 
ity than  to  apply  personality  to  God,  in  any  right 
sense  of  the  word,  as  personality  implies  locality, 
which  signifies  limited  to  place,  which  would  be  very 
impious  to  say  of  the  infinite  Jehovah  ;  it  is  also  a 
doctrine  unwarranted  by  Scripture,  as  the  word  Tri- 
nity is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible;  for  although  the 
apostle  is  made  to  say,  agreeably  to  our  present  trans- 
lation, that  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  Heaven, 
yet  he  assures  us  that  these  three  are  but  one."3 

The  following  extract  from  a  Sermon  delivered  by 


1  The  Quaker,  I.  56. 

a  See,  also,  recapitulation  in  Chapter  VII.  Section  4. 

3  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  p.  55. 


ON    THE    DIVINE    BEING.  155 

Elias  Hicks  in  Pine  Street  Meeting,  Philadelphia, 
12th  month  10th,  1826,  is  one  of  the  passages  on 
which  a  charge  against  him  of  promulgating  "anti- 
christian  doctrines"  was  made  by  the  ruling  party  in 
that  meeting,  and  sent  by  a  committee  to  his  own 
monthly  meeting,  viz. : — 

"  I  say,  dearly  beloved,  my  soul  craves  it  for   us, 
that  we  may  sink  down  and  examine  ourselves ;  ac- 
cording to  the  declaration  of  the  Apostle :  '  Examine 
yourselves  whether  ye  be  in  the  faith ;  prove  your 
own  selves:  know  ye  not  your  own  selves,  how  that 
Jesus   Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye  be  reprobates  ? ' 
Now  we  cannot    suppose   that   the   Apostle    meant 
that   outward   man,  that  walked    about   the    streets 
of  Jerusalem ;  because  he  is  not  in  any  of  us.     But 
what  is  this  Jesus  Christ?      He  came   to  be  a  Sa- 
viour  to  that   nation,   and  was    limited  to  that  na- 
tion.    He  came  to  gather  up  and  look  up  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.     But  as  he  was  a  Sa- 
viour in  the  outward  sense,  so  he  was  an  outward 
shadow  of  good  things  to  come ;  and  so  the  work  of 
the  man  Jesus  Christ  was  a  figure.     He  healed  the 
sick  of  their  outward   calamities,  —  he  cleansed  the 
leprosy,  —  all  of  which  was  external  and  affected  only 
their  bodies,  —  as   sickness   don't  affect  the  souls  of 
the  children  of  men,  though  they  may  labor  under 
all  these  things.     But  as  he  was  considered  a  saviour, 
he  meant  by  what  he  said,  a  saviour  is  within  you, 
the  anointing  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  within  you :  for 
this  made  the  ways  of  Jesus  so  wonderful  in  his  day, 
that  the   Psalmist  in  his  prophecy  concerning  him 
exclaims  :  *  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated 
iniquity,  therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed 
thee  with   the   oil   of  gladness  above  thy  fellows.' 


156  ON    THE    DIVINE    BEING. 

He  had  loved  righteousness,  you  perceive,  and  there- 
fore was  prepared  to  receive  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit, 
the  fulness  of  the  divine  anointing;  for  there  was  no 
germ  of  evil  in  him  or  about  him :  both  his  soul  and 
body  were  pure.  He  was  anointed  above  all  his 
fellows,  to  be  the  head  of  the  church,  the  top  gh  .  the 
chief  corner-stone,  elect  and  precious.  And  what  v 
it  that  was  a  saviour?  Xot  that  which  was  outward  : 
it  was  not  flesh  and  blood  :  for  'flesh  and  blood  cannot 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  '  it  must  go  to  the 
earth  from  whence  it  was  taken.  It  was  that  life, 
that  saint'  life  that  I  have  already  mentioned,  that  * 
in  him  and  which  is  the  light  and  life  of  men,  and 
which  lighteth  every  man,  and  consequently  every 
woman  that  cometh  into  the  world.  And  we  have 
this  light  and  life  in  us;  which  is  what  the  apostle 
meant  by  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  if  we  have  not  this  ruling 
in  us,  we  are  dead,  because  we  arc  not  under  the  law 
of  the  spirit  of  life.  For  the  'law  is  light,  and  the 
reproofs  of  instruction  the  way  of  life.' 

After  Elias  Hicks  t  »ok  his  seat,  Jonathan  Evans, 

an  elder   of  Pine  Street    Meeting,  ar08e    and  declared 

that  the  Society  of  Friends  believed  in  k*the  atone- 
ment, mediation,  and  intercession  of  out'  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ"  "We  believe  him,"  said  he, 
"  to  be  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords,  before  wh< 
judgment-seat  every  sonl  shall  be  arraigned  and 
judged  by  him.  We  do  not  conceive  him  to  be  a 
mere  man;  and  we  therefore  desire  that  people  may 
not  suppose  that  we  hold  any  such  doctrines,  or  that 
we  have  any  unity  with  them."  Isaac  Lloyd,  another 
elder  of  the  same  meeting,  said  :  "  I  unite  with  .Jona- 
than Evans,  — we  never  have  believed  that  our  blessi  d 
Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  came  to  the  Jews 


ON    THE    DIVINE    BEING.  157 

only,  for  he  was  given  for  God's  salvation  to  the  ends 

of  the  earth."1 

Elias  Hicks  added,  "  I  have  spoken  ;  and  I  leave  it 
for  the  people  to  judge,— I  don't  assume  the  judg- 
ment-seat." 

On  this  point  Wrn.  Penn  writes  as  follows:  "The 
coming  of  Christ  in  that  blessed  manifestation  [in 
the  flesh]  was  to  the  Jews  only:  he  says  it  himself,  '  He 
was  not  sent  but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel' 
Mitt.  xv.  24.  Again  :  'He  came  unto  his  own,  and 
his  own  received  him  not.'  John  i.  11." 

Isaac  Pennington,  on  behalf  of  the  Friends,  writes: 
" Now  they  distinguish,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
between  that  which  is  called  the  Christ  and  the  bodily 
.rment  which  he  took.    The  one  was  flesh,  the  other 
spirit.     'The  flesh  profiteth  nothing/  saith  he;  'the 
Spirit  quickeneth,  and  he  that  eateth  me  shall  live  by 
me,   even  as  I  live  by  the  Father.'  John  vi.  57,  63. 
Thia  is  the  manna,  itself  the  true  treasure;  the  other 
but  the  visible  or  earthen  vessel  which  held  it.     The 
body  of  flesh  was  but  the  veil.  Eeb.  x.  20.     The  eter- 
nal life  was  the  substance  veiled.     The  one  he  did 
partake  of  ae  the  rest  of  the  children  did;  the  other 
was  he  which  did  partake  thereof.  Eeb.  ii.  14." 

George  Whitehead  writes:  "Christ,  as  God,  his 
soul  was  increated.  As  man,  hit  toul  or  spirit  was  not 
the  Deity,  but  formed  and  assumed  by  the  Word.  The 
Word  or  Son  of  God  who  made  the  world,  was  not  a 
creature,  because  he  made  all  creatures."3 

The  following  passages,  from  the  letters  of  Eliafl 


i  The  Quaker,  I.  68,  72.  2  Ibid.  W.  Penn,  Vol.  V.  p.  385. 

*  Antidote  against  the  Venom  of  Snake  in  the  Grass.     London, 

1697,  p.  191. 
14 


158  OX    THE    DIVINE    BEING. 

Hicks  to  some  of  his  intimate  friends,  disclose  his  sen- 
timents in  relation  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  his  mi- 
raculous conception,  miracles,  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion, viz. :  "Jesus  Christ  in  his  outward  manifestation 
was  more  blest  and  abundantly  more  glorified  than 
any  other  man,  and  was  above  all,  and  therefore  tvas  the 
representative  of  God  on  earth,  visible  to  the  external 
senses,  although  the  power  by  which  he  did  his 
mighty  works  was  the  invisible  power  of  God,  con- 
ferred upon  him  for  that  end,  he  being  the  instrument 
through  whom  God,  by  his  power,  wrought  all  those 
mighty  works,  that  declared  him  to  he  the  Son  of  God 
with  power;  but  it  was  only  the  effects  of  the  power, 
and  not  the  power  that  was  visible  to  the  outward 
senses  of  his  disciples  and  the  people.  Hence  it  was 
expedient  that  he  Bhould  leave  them  as  to  hia  visible 
appearance,  as  nothing  short  of  that  conld  open  the 
way  for  their  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  leader. 
And  in  another  respect  he  stood  in  the  place  of  God 
to  that  people,  in  raising  their  dead  outwardly,  and 
healing  all  their  ontward  maladies,  and  forgiving  tip 
he  healed  of  all  their  legal  sins,  by  which  he  qualified 
them  to  enjoy  all  the  privileges  and  good  things  of 
their  outward  Heaven  [Canaan], and  all  thehappin 
it  comprehended.  In  which  he  and  his  mighty  works 
outwardly  wrought  were  a  complete  figure  of  the  work 
of  God  on  the  believing  soul ;  raising  it  from  the  death 
of  sin,  healing  it  of  all  its  spiritual  maladies,  and  tit- 
ting  it  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  divine  presence,  which 
is  Heaven  in  the  substance.  And  as  he  stood  in  the 
place  of  God  outwardly  to  Israel,  so  he  was  likewise 
a  real  and  true  man,  as  the  Scriptures  abundantly 
assure  us,  being  the  son  or  offspring  of  Abraham  and 
David  after  the  flesh  ;  born  of  an  Israelitish  vir</in, 


ON    THE    DIVINE    BEING.  159 

brought  up  and  nursed  by  his  parents,  and  was  sub- 
ject unto  them  until  he  arrived  at  the  state  of  man- 
hood ;  complying  faithfully  with  all  the  requisitions 
and  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  law,  by  which  he  justi- 
fied his  Heavenly  Father  in  giving  that  law  and  those 
commandments;  proving  by  his  faithfully  fulfilling  all 
of  them,  that  it  was  within  the  capacity  and  power 
of  every  Israelite  to  have  done  the  same,  had  they 
faithfully  improved  the  ability  they  had  received  for 
that  end  ;  and  bv  which  he  condemned  their  unfaith- 
fulness.  And  the  last  ritual  was  John's  water  baptism, 
by  complying  with  which  he  fulfilled  all  tbe  right- 
eousness of  the  outward  law  and  testament,  and  was 
then  prepared  for  entering  upon  his  mission  by  the 
more  full  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  descended 
upon  him  as  soon  as  he  had  finished  all  the  work  of 
shadows  relative  to  the  law  state,  and  which  qualified 
him  for  his  gospel  mission,  in  which  he  went  forth 
clothed  with  power  from  on  high,  preaching  the  glad 
tidings  of  peace  and  salvation;  very  few,  however, 
understood  or  believed  his  doctrines,  being  so  outward 
and  worldly-minded.  And  when  he  had  finished  his 
ministration,  in  which  he  fulfilled  the  righteousness 
of  both  the  law  and  the  gospel,  setting  thereby  an 
example  to  all  his  followers,  —  showing  them  that  by 
faithfulness  to  the  operations  of  the  same  spirit  and 
power,  according  to  the  measure  received,  they  might  do 
the  same ;  yea,  he  assured  his  immediate  followers 
that  even  greater  works  than  these  which  he  had 
done,  should  they  do.  AVhen  he  had  thus  finished 
his  course,  he  surrendered  himself  to  his  enemies  who 
crucified  him,  that  is  his  outward  body,  which  was  all 
they  could  do.  But  when  he  gave  up  the  ghost,  his 
immortal  spirit  rose  superior  to  all  their  malice,  and 


160  ON    THE    DIVINE    BEING. 

ascended  immediately  into  Paradise.  This  ascension 
was  not  visible  to  the  outward  senses  ;  his  body  was 
laid  in  the  tomb,  —  and  to  complete  the  figure  of  our 
redemption,  it  was  raised  again  outwardly ;  by  which 
is  typified  the  crucifixion  of  the  old  fallen  man  with 
all  his  deeds,  which  is  affected,  by  the  cross  of  Christ, 
as  saith  the  apostle :  '  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of 
us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,'  that  is,  into 
the  Spirit  and  power  of  God,  '  were  baptized  into  his 
death  ?  '  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up, 
outwardly,  'from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  '  be  spiritually  raised  up  to 
'walk  in  newness  of  life.'  And  this  outward  ascen- 
sion as  it  was  manifest  to  the  external  senses  of  his 
disciples,  must  have  been  the  outward  man,  as  the 
immortal  spirit  of  the  Saviour  never  was,  nor  ever 
could  be  seen  by  outward  eyes,  — hence  this  outward 
ascension  was  a  complete  type  of  the  inward  or  spir- 
itual ascension  of  the  immortal  soul  of  man  from  an 
earthly  to  a  heavenly  state;  by  which  it  regains  Para- 
dise, and  which  must  and  will  be  regained  by  every 
redeemed  soul  on  this  side  the  grave."1 

In  another  letter  written  by  Elias  Hicks,  less  than 
three  years  before  his  decease,  he  says:  "Thy  next 
query  respecting  the  miraculous  concepton,  &c,  is  to 
me  a  very  plain,  simple  thing.  All  the  external  mira- 
cles of  the  Jewish  covenant  had  but  one  aim  and  end ; 
and  the  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus,  and  of  Isaac 
and  John  the  Baptist  were  among  the  greatest;  all 
of  which  were  intended  to  prove  to  that  dark  and 
ignorant  people,  debased  by  their  bondage,  that  there 
was  a  living  and  invisible  God ;  for  such  was  their 

1  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  pp.  75,  77. 


ON    THE    DIVINE    BEING.  161 

degraded  state  that  no  other  means  seemed  calculated 
to  awaken  them,  and  raise  in  them  a  belief  in  that 
invisible  power  that  made  and  governed  the  world, 
but  an  external  manifestation  thereof,  through  the 
medium  of  outward  miracles.  And  as  Moses  and  the 
prophets  had  foretold  of  the  coming  of  their  last  great 
prophet,  it  was  of  singular  importance  to  that  people, 
that  they  should  know  and  believe  in  him  when  he 
came;  and  as  they  depended  on  outward  miracles  as 
the  highest  evidence  under  that  dispensation,  so  it  is 
not  only  reasonable,  but  even  natural  to  suppose  that 
he  would  be  ushered  in  by  some  miraculous  display 
of  divine  power.  Hence  the  reason,  likewise,  of  the 
many  miracles  that  Jesus  was  empowered  to  work 
among  them,  as  they  were  too  outward  and  carnal  to 
receive  evidence  through  any  other  medium.  And 
w^e  likewise  see  that  none  but  those  who  believed  on 
him  as  their  promised  Messiah  were  prepared  to 
receive  and  obey  his  last  counsel  and  command  to 
turn  from  outward  and  external  evidence  to  that 
which  is  inward  and  spiritual ; '  the  latter  being  as 
much  above  the  former  as  the  gospel  state  is  above 
the  law  state,  or  the  spirit  above  the  letter." 

"  As  to  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  the  son  of  the 
virgin  —  when  he  had  arrived  at  a  full  state  of  son- 
ship  in  the  spiritual  generation,  he  was  wholly  swal- 
lowed up  into  the  divinity  of  his  Heavenly  Father, 
and  was  one  with  the  Father,  with  only  this  differ- 
ence :  his  Father's  divinity  was  underived,  being  self 
existent;  but  the  Son's  divinity  was  altogether  de- 
rived from  the  Father,  for  otherwise  he  could  not  be 
the  Son  of  God,  as  in  the  moral  relation  to  be  a  son 

1  John  xiv.  16,  17,  and  xvi.  7. 
14*  2C 


162  SALVATION    BY   CHRIST. 

of  man,  the  son  must  be  begotten  by  one  father,  and 
he  must  be  in  the  same  nature,  spirit,  and  likeness  of 
his  father,  so  as  to  say,  I  and  my  father  are  one,  in  all 
those  respects.  But  this  was  not  the  case  with  Jesus 
in  the  spiritual  relation  until  he  had  gone  through 
the  last  institute  of  the  law  dispensation,  viz.,  John's 
watery  baptism,  and  had  received  additional  power1 
from  on  high  by  the  descending  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
upon  him  as  he  came  up  out  of  the  water.2  He  then 
witnessed  the  fulness  of  the  second  birth,  being  now 
born  into  the  nature,  spirit,  and  likeness  of  the  Heav- 
enly Father,  and  God  gave  witness  of  it  to  John,  say- 
ing, '  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased.' 


»  "  8 


SALVATION    BY   CHRIST. 

§  5.  The  doctrine  of  salvation  by  Christ,  as  held  by 
the  early  Friends,  has  been  exhibited  in  the  fifth 
Chapter  of  this  treatise,  and  recapitulated  in  the  fifth 
section  of  Chapter  VII. 

The  views  of  Elias  Hicks  on  this  subject  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  following  passages  from  his  letters  and 
sermons :  — 

"All  the  persecution  and  cruel  deaths  that  have 
transpired  in  the  world  among  mankind ;  not  only 
the  persecution  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus  Christ ;  but 
also  all  the  sufferings  and  martyrdom  caused  by 
wicked  men,  have  had  their  rise  and  spring  from 
man's  unjust  and  unrighteous  use  of  his  liberty  and 
power,  conferred  upon  him  only  to  do  his  master's 
will  in  all  things."  *  *  *  *  "Had  the  Israelites  all 


1  Luke  ii.  52.  "  Matt.  iii.  16. 

3  Letters  of  E.  H.,  pp.  203,  204. 


SALVATION   BY    CHKIST.  163 

been  faithful  to  the  outward  covenant  oven  them 
through  Moses,  they  would  all  have  been  prepared 
to  have  received  their  Messiah  in  the  way  of  his  com- 
ing, as  did  those  that  believed  on  him,  and  by  which 
the  end  of  his  coming  would  have  been  much  more 
fully  answered;  as  all  Israel  then,  like  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  Christ,  would  willingly  have  passed  from  the 
old,  and  cheerfully  entered  into  the  new  dispensation. 
Hence  no  crucifixion,  no  suffering  or  death  of  Jesus 
Christ  would  have  taken  place  ;  but  when  his  minis- 
try on  earth  was  finished,  by  fulfilling  the  law  and 
abolishing  that  outward  covenant,  and  turning  the 
minds  of  the  people  to  the  inward,  to  the  law  written 
in  the  heart,  and  when,  by  a  life  of  perfect  righteous- 
ness and  self-denial,  he  had  introduced  his  disciples 
into  the  gospel,  he  would  then  have  been  (like  Enoch 
and  Elijah)  translated,  without  suffering  the  pains  of 
death.  But  as  Divine  Wisdom  foresaw  that  his  peo- 
ple Israel  would  revolt  from  his  commandments,  and 
rebel  against  his  law  and  become  cruel  and  hard- 
hearted,  so  likewise  he  foresaw  that  the  wicked 
among  them  would  cruelly  persecute  and  slay  many 
of  the  righteous,  and  his  son  Jesus  Christ  among  the 
rest.  Therefore  he  inspired  many  of  his  servants  to 
testify  of  these  things  amongst  them  before  they  came 
to  pass,  as  warning  and  caution,  that  so  those  who 
were  seeking  after  the  right  way,  might  be  preserved 
from  taking  any  part  therein,  while  those  who  wil- 
fully hardened  their  hearts  against  reproof  might  suf- 
fer the  penalties  resulting  from  their  crimes,  which 
they  had  committed  in  their  own  free  choice,  contrary 
to  the  counsel  and  will  of  their  Creator."  1 

1  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  pp.  54,  55. 


164  SALVATION    BY    CHRIST. 

In  a  letter  to  Dr.  Nathan  Shoemaker,  Elias  Hicks 
wrote  as  follows  i1  "  By  what  means  did  Jesus  suffer? 
The  answer  is  plain  —  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men, 
and  because  his  works  were  righteous  and  theirs  were 
wicked.  Query.  Did  God  send  him  into  the  world 
purposely  to  suffer  death  by  the  hands  of  wicked 
men?  By  no  means;  but  to  live  a  righteous  and 
Godly  life  (which  was  the  design  and  end  of  God's 
creating  man  in  the  beginning),  and  thereby  be  a 
perfect  example  to  such  of  mankind  as  should  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  him  and  his  perfect  life.  For  if 
it  was  the  purpose  and  will  of  God  that  he  should  die 
by  the  hands  of  wicked  men,  then  the  Jews  by  cruci- 
fying him  would  have  done  God's  will,  and  of  course 
would  all  have  stood  justified  in  his  sight,  which 
could  not  be.  But  it  was  permitted  so  to  be,  as  it 
had  been  with  many  of  the  prophets  and  wise  and 
good  men  that  were  before  him,  who  suffered  death 
by  the  hands  of  wicked  men  for  righteousness'  sake, 
as  ensamples  to  those  that  came  after,  that  they  should 
account  nothing  too  dear  to  give  up  for  the  truth's 
sake,  not  even  their  own  lives. 

"But  the  shedding  of  his  blood  by  the  wicked 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  and  people  of  Israel,  had  a 
particular  effect  on  the  Jewish  nation,  as  by  this,  the 
topstone,  and  worst  of  all  their  crimes,  was  filled  up 
the  measure  of  their  iniquities,  and  which  put  an 
end  to  that  dispensation,  together  with  its  law  and 
covenant.  That,  as  John's  baptism  summed  up  in 
one,  all  the  previous  water  baptisms  of  that  dispensa- 
tion, and  put  an  end  to  them,  which  he  sealed  with 


1  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  II.  p.  422,  being  Exhibit  No.  37,  by  the 
orthodox  party. 


SALVATION    BY    CHRIST.  165 

his  blood,  so  this  sacrifice  of  the  body  of  Jesus 
Christ,  summed  up  in  one  all  the  outward  atoning 
sacrifices  of  the  shadowy  dispensation  and  put  an  end 
to  them  all,  thereby  abolishing  the  law,  having  pre- 
viously fulfilled  all  its  righteousness,  and,  as  saith  the 
apostle,  'He  blotted  out  the  handwriting  of  ordi- 
nances nailing  them  to  his  cross;'  having  put  an  end 
to  the  law  that  commanded  them,  with  all  its  legal 
sins,  and  abolished  all  its  legal  penalties,  so  that  all 
the  Israelites  that  believed  on  him,  after  he  exclaimed 
on  the  cross,  'It  is  finished,'  might  abstain  from  all 
the  rituals  of  their  law,  such  as  circumcision,  water 
baptisms,  outward  sacrifices,  Seventh-day  sabbaths, 
and  all  their  other  holy-days,  &c,  and  be  blameless: 
and  the  legal  sins  that  any  were  guilty  of,  were  now 
remitted  and  done  away  by  the  abolishment  of  the 
law  that  commanded  them,  for  '  where  there  is  no 
law  there  is  no  transgression.'  But  those  that  did 
not  believe  on  him,  many  of  them  were  destroyed  by 
the  sword,  and  the  rest  were  scattered  abroad  in  the 
earth.  But  I  do  not  consider  that  the  crucifixion  of  the 
outward  body  of  flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  on  the  cross, 
was  an  atonement  for  any  sins  but  the  legal  sins  of  the 
Jews;  for  as  their  law  was  outward,  so  their  legal 
sins  and  their  penalties  were  outward,  and  these  could 
be  atoned  for  by  an  outward  sacrifice ;  and  this  last 
outward  sacrifice  was  a  full  type  of  the  inward  sacri- 
fice that  every  sinner  must  make,  in  giving  up  that 
sinful  life  of  his  own  will,  in  and  by  which  he  hath, 
from  time  to  time,  crucified  the  innocent  life  of  God 
in  his  own  soul;  and  which  Paul  calls  'the  old  man 
with  his  deeds,'  or  '  the  man  of  sin  and  son  of  perdi- 
tion,' who  hath  taken  God's  seat  in  the  heart,  and 
there  exalteth  itself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or 

2C2 


166  SALVATION   BY  CHRIST. 

is  worshipped,  sitting  as  judge  and  supreme.  Now 
all  this  life,  power,  and  will  of  man  must  be  slain 
and  die  on  the  cross  spiritually,  as  Jesus  died  on  the 
cross  outwardly,  and  this  is  the  true  atonement,  which 
that  outward  atonement  was  a  clear  and  full  type  of. 
This  the  Apostle  Paul  sets  forth  in  a  plain  manner, 
Romans  vi.  3  and  4.  'Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of 
us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
up  from  the  dead,'  (outwardly,)  'by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we,'  having  by  the  spiritual  baptism 
witnessed  a  death  to  sin,  shall  knowT  a  being  raised 
up  spiritually  and  so  walk  in  newness  of  life."  1 

In  a  letter  of  later  date  he  writes:  "As  to  the 
advantage  the  reviewers  have  taken  or  pretended  to 
take,  on  what  they  construe  as  an  admission  on  my 
part,  in  my  letter  to  Dr.  Shoemaker,  that  the  death 
of  Christ  merely  of  itself  was  an  atonement  at  all, 
I  had  no  such  idea ;  for  I  believe  I  rested  it  princi- 
pally on  the  effects  of  his  mission  and  death.  As  is  very 
clear,  not  only  from  the  apostle's  testimony  where 
he  asserts  that  Jesus  had  abolished  the  law,  and 
'blotted  out  the  handwriting  of  ordinances,  nailing 
them  to  his  cross,'  &c. ;  but  also  by  the  facts  which 
followed,  some  of  which  were  manifest  while  he  was 
with  his  disci  [ties,  in  justifying  them  for  a  breach 
of  their  shadowy  Sabbath,  and  divers  other  things  in 
their  conduct  which  made  a  breach  upon  the  letter 
of  their  law.  By  which  the  design  of  his  mission  is 
proved,  that  it  was  purposely  to  put  an  end  to  that 
law   and  covenant,  and  to  introduce   a  better:    not 

1  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  p.  124  to  12G. 


SALVATION    BY    CHRIST.  167 

another  outward  one,  but  an  inward  one,  agreeably 
to  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah.  And  this  he  clearly 
and  amply  did  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount,  as  is  be- 
fore shown,  but  was  finished  by  his  last  act  of  sur- 
render on  the  cross,  when  he  bowed  his  head  and 
said,  'It  is  finished.'  At  which  time  the  vaiT  of 
the  temple  was  rent  in  twain  from  the  top  to  the 
bottom."  1 

In  his  sermon  at  Pine  Street,  Philadelphia,  de- 
livered 12th  month  10th,  1826,  Elias  Hicks,  after  re- 
ferring to  "the  blood  of  the  Lamb,"  by  which  the 
soul  "is  washed  clean,"  proceeds  as  follows :  "And 
what  is  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  ?  It  was  his  life,  my 
friends ;  for  as  outward  material  blood  was  made  use 
of  to  express  the  animal  life,  inspired  men  used  it  as 
a  simile.  Outward  blood  is  the  life  of  the  animal, 
but  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  soul ;  for  the  soul 
has  no  animal  blood,  —  no  material  blood.  The  life 
of  God  in  the  soul,  is  the  blood  of  the  soul,  and  the 
life  of  God  is  the  blood  of  God ;  and  so  it  was  the 
life  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  son.  For  he  was 
born  of  the  spirit  of  his  heavenly  Father,  and  swal- 
lowed up  fully  and  completely  in  his  divine  nature, 
so  that  he  was  completely  divine.  It  was  this  that 
operated  in  that  twofold  state,  and  governed  the 
whole  animal  man,  which  was  the  son  of  Abraham 
and  David  —  a  tabernacle  for  his  blessed  soul."2 

In  the  year  1829,  "  Six  Queries  "  were  proposed  by 
Thomas  Legge  tt,  Jr.,  of  .New  York,  and  answered  by 
Elias  Hicks.     The  last  was  as  follows : — 

Sixth  Query.  What  relation  has  the  body  of  Jesus 
to  the  Saviour  of  man  ?     Dost  thou  believe  that  the 

1  fetters  of  E.  Hicks,  p.  170.  2  Quaker,  Vol.  I.  p.  62 


168  SALVATION    BY    CHRIST. 

crucifixion  of  the  outward  body  of  Jesus  Christ  was 
an  atonement  for  our  sins? 

Answer.  "In  reply  to  the  first  part  of  this  query,  I 
answer,  I  believe,  in  unison  with  our  ancient  Friends, 
that  it  was  the  garment  in  which  he  performed  all  his 
mighty  works,  or  as  Paul  expressed  it,  'Know  ye  not 
that  your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
is  in  you,'  therefore  he  charged  them  not  to  defile  those 
temples.  "What  is  attributed  to  that  bod}7, 1  acknowl- 
edge and  give  to  that  body,  in  its  place,  according  as 
the  Scripture  attributeth  it,  which  is  through  and  be- 
cause of  that  which  dwelt  and  acted  in  it.  But  that 
which  sanctified  and  kept  the  body  pure  (and  made 
all  acceptable  in  him)  was  the  life,  holiness,  and 
righteousness  of  the  Spirit.  And  the  same  thing 
that  kept  his  vessel  pure,  it  is  the  same  thing  that 
clean seth  us.'  "  ! 

"In  reply  to  the  second  part  of  this  query,  I  would 
remark  that  I  'see  no  need  of  directing  men  to  the 
type  for  the  antitype,  neither  to  the  outward  temple, 
nor  yet  to  Jerusalem,  neither  to  Jesus  Christ  or  his 
blood  [outwardly],  knowing  that  neither  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,  nor  the  word  of  it  doth  so  direct.'  "2 
"  The  new  and  second  covenant  is  dedicated  with  the 
blood,  the  life  of  Christ  Jesus,  which  is  the  alone  atone- 
ment unto  God,  by  which  all  his  pleople  are  washed, 
sanctified,  cleansed,  and  redeemed  to  God."  3 

1  I.  Pennington,  Vol.  III.  p.  34. 

2  G.  Whitehead,  Light  and  Life  of  Christ,  Phila.  ed.  1823,  p.  34 

3  G.  Fox,  Doctrinals,  p.  646,  and  Am.  ed.  Vol.  V.  p.  365. 


THE    DOCTRIXAL    CONTROVERSY.  169 


\ 

CHAPTER    IX. 

THE   DOCTRINAL   CONTROVERSY. 

On  comparing  the  doctrines  promulgated  by  Jos. 
John  Gurney  with  those  held  by  Elias  Hicks,  it  is 
obvious  that  they  are  totally  irreconcilable  with  each 
other,  and  on  a  close  examination  it  will  be  found, 
that  neither  of  those  eminent  men  held  views,  in  all 
points,  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  writings  of  the 
early  Friends.  This  is  manifest  from  their  own  de- 
clarations. "Were  I  required,"  says  J.  J.  Gurney, 
"  to  define  Quakerism,  I  should  not  describe  it  as  the 
system  so  elaborate^  wrought  out  by  a  Barclay,  or 
as  the  doctrines  and  maxims  of  a  Penn,  or  as  the 
deep  and  refined  views  of  a  Pennington,  for  all  these 
authors  have  their  defects  as  well  as  their  excellen- 
cies. I  should  call  it  the  religion  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  with- 
out diminution,  without  addition,  and  without  com- 
promise." l 

Elias  Hicks  writes,  in  relation  to  the  atonement: 
"Our  primitive  Friends  stopped  short  in  that  matter, 
not  for  want  of  faithfulness,  but  because  the  day, 
that  was  in  some  respects  still  dark,  would  not  admit 
of  further  openings,  because  the  people  could  not 
bear  it,  therefore  it  was  to  be  a  future  work."  2 

It  will  probably  be  admitted  by  the  impartial 
inquirer,  that  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks  are  much 


1  Brief  Remarks  on  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  p.  16. 

2  Letters  of  E.  Hicks,  d.  66.     [To  Phebe  Willis.] 
IV  — 15 


170  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

nearer  to  the  standard  of  early  Quakerism  than  those 
of  Joseph  John  Gurney,  and  there  is  reason  to  con- 
clude that  each  of  them  honestly  believed  his  views 
to  be,  in  all  essential  points,  nearly  the  same  as  those 
of  Fox,  Penn,  and  Barclay. 

In  this  examination,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
no  Yearly  Meeting  or  other  organized  body  of  Friends 
in  England  or  America  has  ever  given  its  official  sanc- 
tion to  all  the  doctrinal  views  of  either  Gurney  or 
Hicks.  All  Friends  concur  in  referring  to  the  New 
Testament  as  the  repositoiy  of  their  doctrines,  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  their  expounder,  and  to  the  writings 
of  the  early  Friends  as  corroborative  evidence. 

As  both  Joseph  John  Gurney  and  Elias  Hicks  mani- 
fested in  life  and  conversation  a  Christian  spirit,  we 
cannot  doubt  the  reality  of  their  devotion,  or  the  sin- 
cerity of  their  professions.  The  discordance  between 
their  doctrinal  views  was  doubtless  the  result  of  edu- 
cation and  position,  increased,  perhaps,  by  a  difference 
in  the  natural  tendencies  of  their  minds. 

It  has  often  been  asked,  how  can  we  reconcile  such 
a  diversity  of  doctrines  among  those  who  profess  to 
be  led  by  the  Spirit  of  Truth  in  their  ministrations? 
This  ha?,  doubtless,  been  a  stumbling-block  to  many 
sincere,  seeking  souls.  It  can  only  be  removed  by 
bearing  in  mind  the  frailty  of  human  nature,  and  the 
condescension  of  Infinite  Goodness.  The  Spirit  of 
Truth  is  infallible  in  itself;  but  man  being  fallible,  is 
liable  to  mistake  its  dictates,  unless  preserved  in 
watchfulness  and  humility. 

It  is  the  experience  of  all  truly  religious  persons 
that,  in  their  seasons  of  private  devotion,  subjects  of 
deep  interest  to  their  spiritual  welfare  are  sometimes 
opened  to  their  view,  and  instruction  is  imparted  to 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  171 

them  in  the  language  of  impressions  made  upon  the 
mind.  By  this  means  they  are  enlightened  in  regard 
to  the  duties  of  life,  aud  sometimes  doctrinal  subjects 
are  opened  to  the  understanding;  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  every  doctrine  of  Christianity  is  always 
revealed  in  clearness,  even  to  the  most  devoted  minds. 
!N"ow  we  must  remember  that  ministers  of  the  gospel 
are,  in  regard  to  their  religious  experience,  taught  in 
the  same  manner  as  others,  by  the  illumination  of 
divine  grace,  and  on  some  subjects  the  light  may  not 
have  shone,  leaving  them  still  under  the  influence  of 
traditional  opinions.  Even  the  Apostle  Paul  acknowl- 
edged, "We  know  in  part  and  we  prophesy  in  part/' 
*  *  *  *  "For  now  we  see  through  a  glass  darkly."1 
They  who  are  called  to  the  gospel  ministry  are,  at 
times,  moved  by  an  indescribable  impulse,  accompa- 
nied with  love  to  God  and  man,  to  communicate  to 
others  the  truths  that  have  warmed  their  own  hearts. 
This  preparation  for  religious  service  is  thus  described 
by  the  Psalmist:  "My  heart  was  hot  within  me;  while 
I  was  musing,  the  fire  burned:  then  spake  I  with  my 
tongue."  2 

"When  the  Holy  Spirit  illuminates  the  understand- 
ing, all  its  faculties  are  quickened  and  invigorated. 
It  is  then  that  the  chambers  of  memory  are  unlocked, 
and  he  who  is  instructed  unto  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
"brings  forth  out  of  his  treasures  things  new  and 
old;  "  passages  of  Scripture  adapted  to  the  occasion 
are  brought  to  mind,  and  sometimes  seen  in  a  new 
light;  personal  experience  is  revived  and  pertinently 
applied,  and  even  the  knowledge  of  the  natural  sci- 
ences stored  in  the  mind  may  be  brought  forth  and 
made  subservient  to  the  illustration  of  heavenly  truth. 

— — — ■ _ ■  ^ 

1  1  Cor.  xiii.  9-12.  2  Ps.  xxxix.  3. 


172  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

A  minister  of  the  gospel,  who  is  watchful  and  obe- 
dient, will  generally  be  preserved  from  meddling  with 
things  too  high  fur  him,  but  if  at  any  time  he  should 
be  induced  by  undue  excitement,  or  the  association 
of  ideas,  to  touch  upon  subjects  on  which  he  is  not 
authorized  to  speak,  he  will,  of  course,  handle  them 
in  accordance  with  his  preconceived  opinions.  In 
almost  every  reflecting  mind,  some  subjects  or  points 
of  doctrine  have  claimed  peculiar  attention,  and  as- 
sumed unusual  importance;  these  are  always  knock- 
ing for  admission ;  and  nothing  short  of  entire  self- 
renunciation  will  enable  a  minister  to  avoid  their 
introduction  at  times  when  they  are  not  authorized 
nor  appropriate. 

From  these  causes,  a  diversity  of  expression  has 
resulted,  even  among  ministers  who  have  received  a 
measure  of  the  holy  anointing;  and  it  has  often  been 
observed  that  a  discourse  begun  under  the  solemniz- 
ing influence  of  divine  truth,  has  before  its  conclu- 
sion  degenerated  into  a  mere  recitation  of  speculative 
opinions  that  did  not  profit  the  hearers.  If  we  have 
evidence  that  some,  who  occasionally  err  in  this  man- 
ner, are  at  other  times  favored  "to  minister  in  the 
ability  which  God  giveth,"  should  we  not  reverence 
the  condescension  of  Infinite  Goodness,  and,  remem- 
bering our  own  weakness,  be  slow  to  censure  our 
fellow-servants  ? 

It  has  already  been  observed,  that  Friends  in 
America  generally  held  the  views  inculcated  by  Fox, 
Penn,  Pennington  and  Barclay,  and  that  great  stress 
was  laid  upon  the  grace  of  God  or  spirit  of  Christ,  as 
the  efficient  cause  of  salvaiion.  This  statement  is 
fully  sustained  by  the  "  Introduction  to  Christian  Ad- 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  173 

vices,"  published   in  the  year  1808,  by  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Friends  held  in  Philadelphia,  viz. :  — 

"  The  following  extracts  have  been  compiled  for  the 
benefit  of  the  members  of  our  Yearly  Meeting,  that 
observing  the  travail  of  the  Church  under  various  con- 
cerns which,  in  divine  wisdom,  have  been  communi- 
cated for  its  weighty  attention,  they  may  be  drawn 
to  the  principle  of  Life  and  Light  manifested  in  the 
mind,  which  points  out  the  path  of  duty,  and  can 
alone  preserve  therein. 

"  Our  ancient  Friends  and  their  faithful  successors 
to  the  present  day  have  earnestly  labored  to  turn  the 
attention  of  all  to  this  pure  spirit,  knowing  from  expe- 
rience that  it  is  the  means  appointed  by  God  for 
effecting  our  salvation,  and  the  only  foundation  of  true 
religion  and  worship.  As  by  this  we  have  been  led 
into  divers  testimonies  which  have  distinguished  us 
from  most  other  professors  of  the  Christian  name,  and 
fervently  desire  that  all  our  members  may  walk  by 
the  same  rule,  and  mind  the  same  tiling;  thus  everv 
one  filling  his  place  in  the  body,  we  shall  grow  up 
into  Him  in  all  things,  who  is  the  Head,  even 
Christ." 

These  sentiments  are  further  corroborated  by  the 
memorials  of  deceased  Friends,  issued  by  the  same 
Yearly  Meeting  during  a  long  series  of  years. 

The  following  extract  is  from  the  "Testimony  of 
the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia  for  the  South- 
ern District  concerning  Deborah  Evans,  wife  of  Wil- 
liam Evans."  "  At  another  time  she  said,  that  some 
time  back,  upon  hearing  some  parts  of  the  jNew  Testa- 
ment read,  respecting  our  Saviour,  the  query  occurred, 
'What  do  I  know  of  a  Saviour?'  and  it  was  presently 
followed  by  the  evidence  that  she  had  felt  a  principle 
15*  IV— 2D 


174  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

in  her  own  mind,  which  had  shown  her  what  was 
right  and  what  was  wrong,  and  that  as  she  at- 
tended to  it,  it  would  prove  a  Saviour  to  her  —  and 
then  said  these  expressions  were  brought  to  her  re- 
membrance, '  To  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent  is  life  eternal.' " 

Such  being  the  sentiments  generally  held  by 
Friends  composing  the  Yearly  Meetings  of  Phila- 
delphia, New  York,  and  Baltimore,  and  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  entertained  by  those  of  other  Yearly 
Meetings  on  this  continent;  it  is  not  surprising  that 
the  promulgation  of  the  doctrines  held  by  prominent 
Friends  in  England  and  their  coadjutors  in  America, 
should  have  occasioned  a  blaze  of  religious  contro- 
versy. Between  the  years  1819  and  1828,  a  large 
number  of  ministers  from  Groat  Britain  visited  the 
meetings  of  Friends  in  America,  some  of  them  re- 
maining several  years. 

There  are  many  persons  now  living,  who  can  well 
remember  the  effects  produced  by  the  ministrations 
of  William  Forster,  Isaac  Stephenson,  George  Withey, 
Anna  Braithwait,  Elizabeth  Robson,  George  Jones, 
Ann  Jones,  and  Thomas  Shillitoe. 

William  Forster,  in  his  religious  opinions,  coin- 
cided entirely  with  Joseph  John  Gurney.'  His  min- 
istry was  however  frequently  of  a  practical  char- 
acter, and  at  times  remarkable  for  its  baptizing  power. 
The  variety  of  his  subjects,  the  appropriateness  of 
his  illustrations,  the  purity  of  his  language,  and  the 
depth  of  his  feelings,  rendered  him  an  impressive 
and  instructive  minister  of  the  gospel. 

Isaac  Stephenson  was  considered  a  plain,  simple,, 

1  See  Chapter  VII.     Letter  of  W.  Forster. 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  175 

worthy  friend,  and  a  good  minister.  Most  of  the 
others  were  doctrinal  in  their  communications,  and 
being  impressed  with  a  belief  that  many  Friends 
had  embraced  dangerous  opinions,  were  frequent  and 
severe  in  their  denunciations  against  heresy.  It  is 
much  to  be  lamented  that  their  zeal  for  what  are 
called  orthodox  doctrines  should  have  induced  them 
to  aid  in  building  up  a  party  having  in  view  the 
suppression  of  what  they  deemed  heresy,  and  resort- 
ing for  its  accomplishment  to  arbitrary  and  oppressive 
measures  that  had  the  most  disastrous  results. 

One  of  the  favorite  schemes  of  the  ministers  from 
England  and  their  coadjutors  in  America,  which 
however  proved  unsuccessful,  was  the  appointment 
of  a  convention  to  be  composed  of  delegates  from 
all  the  Yearly  Meetings  of  Friends,  for  the  purpose 
of  promoting  uniformity  in  their  codes  of  discipline. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  promoters  of  this 
measure  had  also  in  view  a  uniformity  in  doctrines, 
and  the  adoption  of  a  common  declaration  of  faith, 
which,  since  the  separation,  they  have  carried  into 
effect  among  themselves.1 

This  scheme  was  considered,  by  a  large  number 
of  Friends,  very  objectionable,  inasmuch  as  it  would 
place  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men  the  power  to  re- 
model the  code  of  discipline,  and  perhaps  to  impose 
a  confession  of  faith  not  adapted  to  the  condition  of 
the  several  Yearly  Meetings.  Like  the  councils 
held  in  the  fourth  century  under  the  imposing  de- 
sign of  promoting  uniformity  of  faith,  it  would  prob- 
ably have  resulted,  as  they  did,  in  abridging  re- 
ligious liberty  and  spreading  dissension. 

1  See   Testimony  of  the   [Orthodox]   Yearly  Meetings  in  Amer- 
ica, signed  by  Elisha  Bates,  clerk  of  the  General  Committee. 


176  THE    LOCTEINAL    CONTKOYERSY. 

The  first  attempt  to  introduce  this  measure  was 
made  at  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting,  where  it  met 
with  so  much  opposition  that  it  could  not  be  adopted, 
but  a  postscript  was  added  to  the  epistles  addressed  to 
other  Yearly  Meetings,  suggesting  it  as  a  subject  for 
consideration.  At  the  Yearly  Meeting  held  in  Xew 
York  in  1817,  it  was  considered  and  rejected,  Eli  as 
Hicks  being  one  of  those  who  opposed  it.  At  the 
ensuing  Yearly  Meeting  held  in  Baltimore,  the  sub- 
ject was  taken  up,  and  after  much  deliberation,  it 
was  concluded  to  inform  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meet- 
ing that  it  was  the  judgment  of  Baltimore  Yearly 
Meeting,  "  advantages  would  arise  to  the  Society 
from  a  conference  of  the  several  Yearly  Meetings  on 
this  continent,  by  suitably  qualified  Friends  appointed 
by  each  of  them,  in  order  that  each  Yearly  Meeting 
may  be  put  in  possession,  through  this  medium  of 
the  general  state  of  society  in  America."  This  mi- 
nute, it  will  be  observed,  did  not  embrace  the  orig- 
inal design,  nor  did  it  contemplate  any  co-operation 
with  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  London.  It  appears 
not  to  have  been  satisfactory  to  the  promoters  of  the 
scheme,  and  no  further  progress  at  that  time  was  made. 

The  design,  however,  was  not  abandoned,  as  we 
learn  by  the  following  extract  from  a  letter  written 
in  1822,  by  Hugh  Judge,  an  eminent  minister  of 
Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.  "William  Forster,  the  Eng- 
lish Friend,  revived  in  our  Yearly  Meeting  last  fall, 
the  old  subject,  namely,  the  appointment  of  a  con- 
gress as  proposed  in  your  Yearly  Meeting  some  years 
past;  and  although  our  Yearly  Meeting  the  year  be- 
fore had  unitedly  laid  it  asleep,  yet  William  Forster* 
pressed  the  matter  so  much,  that  Friends,  although 
contrary  to  the  sense  of  the  meeting,  condescended 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  177 

to  take  it  on  minute  and  appointed  a  committee  to 
consider  it  and  report,  and  called  on  the  women  to 
join  them  in  it.  But  the  women  were  wiser  than 
the  men,  and  dismissed  the  subject  without  further 
troubling  themselves  with  it,  and  the  men's  com- 
mittee reported  that  no  way  opened  to  take  any  step; 
and  the  meeting  was  for  dismissing  it,  but  William 
Forster  urged  the  matter  so  hard  that  he  prevailed 
on  the  meeting  to  refer  it  over  to  the  next  year  for 
consideration."1 

In  the  year  1825,  William  Forster,  being  in  Balti- 
more, had  an  interview  with  Evan  Thomas,  an  emi- 
nent and  devoted  minister  of  the  gospel,  then  in  his 
87th  year,  and  their  conversation,  on  account  of  an 
extraordinary  prediction  then  uttered,  was  written 
down,  soon  after  it  occurred,  by  a  Friend  who  was 
present  at  the  time. 

William  Forster,  referring  to  some  incidents  that 
had  occurred  in  the  course  of  his  recent  visit  to  the 
Southern  and  Western  States,  remarked :  "  He  was 
convinced  in  many  places  through  which  he  had 
passed,  that  unsound  views  were  entertained  by  many 
of  our  members,  and  that  he  believed  Elias  Hicks 
had  been  instrumental  in  spreading  doctrines  and 
opinions  that  could  not  be  owned  by  the  Society  of 
Friends.  To  this  Evan  Thomas  replied  that  he  be- 
lieved Elias  Hicks  did  hold  some  peculiar  views 
which,  perhaps,  were  not  entertained  by  Friends  gen- 
erally ;  they  were  his  honest  opinions,  however, 
and  there  could  be  no  doubt  were  sincerely  enter- 
tained by  him.  Upon  this,  William  Forster  ob- 
served, that  some  of  these  views  were  radically  un- 


1  Narrative  of  Causes  which  led  to  the  Separation,  &c.,  p.  21. 

2D2 


178  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

sound  and  subversive  of  the  fundamental  and  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  Christianity,  and  then  emphatically 
and  with  much  earnestness  of  manner,  asked  Evan 
Thomas,  if  in  any  public  communication  or  private 
conversation,  he  had  ever  heard  Elias  Hicks  say, 
'  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ?'  After  some 
pause,  Evan  Thomas  replied,  '  I  do  not  recollect  that 
I  ever  did,  yet  he  may  have  used  these  expressions, 
without  exciting  my  attention  to  them.  I  have  not 
felt  it  to  be  my  place  to  sit  as  a  watchman  at  the  gate, 
to  recollect  and  record  particular  words  falling  from 
the  lips  of  any  Friend,  either  in  his  public  testimo- 
nies or  private  conversation.  I  generally  endeavor  to 
feel  after  and  satisfy  myself  of  the  source  whence  pub- 
lic communications  flow,  and  if  they  are  accompanied 
by  the  Divine  influence  and  power,  I  do  not  look 
critically  into  the  exact  words  that  may  be  used.  I 
have  long  been  acquainted  with  Elias  J  licks  and  be- 
lieve him  to  be  a  consistent,  faithful  testimony 
bearer;  and  although  I  may  not  agree  with  him  in 
all  his  views,  yet  I  can  own  him  as  a  brother  he- 
loved,  and  have  no  doubt  he  has  been  called  to  the 
ministry  by  the  Head  of  the  church.'  To  this  Wil- 
liam Forster  replied :  '  I  consider  him  to  be  alto- 
gether unsound  in  his  views  —  that  he  has  done  a 
great  deal  of  harm,  by  extensively  spreading  dan- 
gerous opinions  among  Friends  in  this  country,  and 
am  convinced,  a  separation  must  and  will  take  place  in 
the  Society  in  America.'  "' 

From  these  expressions,  uttered  two  years  before 
the  separation,  we  may  conclude,  that  Wm.  Forster, 
and  probably  others  of  the  English  visitors,  looked 

1  Narrative  of  the  Causes  which  led  to  the  Separation,  &c,  p.  37 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  179 

forward  to  such  a  separation  as  had  taken  place  in 
Ireland,  in  the  beginning  of  the  century  when  the 
Orthodox  party  remained  in  the  ascendancy  and  their 
opposers  were  scattered  as  sheep  without  a  shepherd. 
The  two  cases,  however,  were  not  parallel ;  for  the 
views  advanced  by  those  who  were  called  Separatists 
in  Ireland,  both  in  regard  to  doctrine  and  discipline, 
were  not  the  same  as  those  held  by  Elias  Hicks  and 
his  friends,  and  moreover  the  Friends  in  America 
were  less  submissive  to  English  authority  than  their 
brethren  in  Ireland. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends  in  Ireland,  before 
the  date  of  those  troubles,  was,  "  in  matters  of  faith 
and  principle,"  subordinate  to  that  of  London,  and 
has  since  continued  in  that  condition ;  whereas  the 
Yearly  Meetings  in  America  had  never  acknowledged 
such  subordination,  but  each  of  them  in  its  govern- 
ment was  independent  of  all  others,  though  united 
in  Christian  fellowship. 

The  views  advanced  in  sermons  and  conversations, 
and  promulgated  in  the  writings  of  English  Friends, 
were  controverted  by  some  of  the  most  prominent 
Friends  in  America,  and  embraced  by  others. 

The  latter  class,  in  ranging  themselves  as  the  ad- 
vocates of  orthodoxy,  did  not  all  hold  the  precise 
views  of  Joseph  John  Gurney,  but  they  all  lent  their 
countenance  and  support  to  the  ministers  from  Eng- 
land, and  used  language  in  their  religious  communi- 
cations ivhich  led  the  public  to  believe  that  they  were 
thoroughly  orthodox.  Subsequent  developments  have 
shown  that  they  were  not  united  in  doctrine,  and 
the  consequence  has  been,  controversy  and  division 
among  themselves,  accompanied  with   feelings   not 


180  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

less  adverse  to  each  other  than  those  they  manifested 
towards  Elias  Hieks. 

In  speaking  of  the  two  parties  composing  the  So- 
ciety between  the  years  1822  and  1828,  it  is  neces- 
sary, for  the  sake  of  perspicuity,  to  designate  them 
by  different  names,  and  no  reasonable  objection  can 
be  made  to  the  use  of  those  chosen  by  themselves 
respectively.  The  class  who  adhered  to  the  English 
doctrines  assumed  the  name  of  Orthodox,  as  appears 
by  their  publications,  and  especially  by  their  two 
bills  in  chancery  addressed  to  the  governor  and 
chancellor  of  New  Jersey  in  the  year  1828. l 

One  of  their  counsel,  Isaac  II.  Williamson,  de- 
clared, also,  on  their  behalf,  "We  are  not  dissatis- 
fied with  the  name  given  to  us.  Ever  since  the 
fourth  century  when  the  controversy  arose  between 
the  Arians  and  the  Trinitarians,  those  who  adhered 
to  what  are  termed  trinitarian  doctrines  have  been 
called  'Orthodox.'"2  By  this  appellation  I  shall 
therefore  distinguish  them,  without  vouching  for  its 
literal  correctness.  The  other  class  were,  by  the  Or- 
thodox, called  Hicksites,  but  they  continually  and 
persevering!  y  disclaimed  the  title,  being  unwilling  to 
acknowledge  any  other  name  than  that  of  Friends. 
In  their  answer  to  the  Bill  in  Chancery  filed  against 
them  in  New  Jersey,  they  say,  "That  in  the  said 
Chesterfield  Preparative  Meeting  of  Friends,  at  Cross- 
wicks,  the  minor  party  assuming  the  name  of  the  Or- 
thodox party,  have  separated  from  the  majority,  who 
still  claim  and  are  entitled  to  the  primary  and  an- 
cient title  of  Friends,  and  have  endeavored  to  bestow 
upon  them  the  name  of  Hicksites,  but  which  term 

1  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  pp.  7,  32.     a  Arguments  of  Counsel,  p.  60. 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  181 

the  said  Society  of  Friends  altogether  disclaim,  and 
deny  that  they  are  the  followers  of  any  man  or  set  of 
men ;  but  are  endeavoring  conscientiously  to  main- 
tain the  regular  discipline  and  government  of  the 
Society  of  Friends;  —  that  they  believe  in  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  religion  as  set  forth  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  as  professed  by  ancient 
Friends."1  This  class  will,  therefore,  in  this  wTork, 
be  designated  as  Friends. 

In  the  doctrinal  controversy  which  continued  for 
many  years,  both  parties  claimed  to  be  the  genuine 
successors  of  the  early  Friends,  alike  in  doctrine  and 
practice,  and  each  charged  the  other  with  a  depar- 
ture, in  important  particulars,  from  the  original  doc- 
trines of  the  Society.  In  order  to  sustain  these  as- 
sertions, many  publications  were  issued  consisting 
chiefly  of  extracts  from  the  writings  of  the  early 
Friends,  which  were  generally  one-sided ;  each  party 
selecting  those  passages  which  favored  its  own  views. 
This  method  of  conducting  a  controversy  does  not 
always  arise  from  disingenuousness ;  it  frequently 
springs  from  that  quality  of  human  nature  which 
induces  almost  every  man  to  regard  with  peculiar 
interest  that  which  concerns  himself  or  his  party, 
and  to  overlook  that  which  concerns  others. 

This  may  be  illustrated  by  reference  to  the  effect 
generally  produced  upon  those  who,  standing  on  an 
eminence,  survey  the  district  of  country  in  which 
they  live.  In  the  scene  outspread  before  them,  they 
note  with  deep  interest  their  own  neighborhood  or 
city,  and  especially  their  own  habitations ;  but  they 
often  overlook  other  features  of  the  landscape  of  equal 

1  Foster's  Reports,  Vol.  I.  p.  24. 
16 


182  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

general  interest,  and  these,  if  seen,  make  less  im- 
pression on  the  memory. 

In  like  manner,  the  members  of  every  sect  in 
Christendom  note  with  most  interest,  and  remem- 
ber with  most  accuracy,  those  passages  of  Scripture 
that  support  their  own  views. 

In  this  examination,  it  is  important  to  observe, 
that  the  orthodox  party,  while  claiming  to  hold  the 
ancient  doctrines  of  the  Society,  classed  themselves 
among  the  "  Trinitarian  sects,"  and  asserted  that 
there  was  a  remarkable  harmony  "  as  regards  most  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion"  between  the 
early  Friends  and  Christian  professors  generally.1 

Thus  they  say,  in  their  Pleadings  in  Chancery: 
"  In  what  among  Protestants  are  commonly  deemed 
the  great  essentials  of  Christianity,  the  religious  sen- 
timents of  the  Society  of  Friends,  or  people  called 
Quakers,  are  in  accordance  with  the  doctrines  com- 
monly entertained  by  the  other  Protestant  sects  of 
Christians  who  arose  after  the  dawn  of  the  great  Prot- 
estant reformation  in  Europe."  *  *  *  *  "That  the 
principal  difference  between  the  people  called  Qua- 
kers and  other  Protestant  Trinitarian  sects,  in  regard 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is,  that  the  latter  at- 
tach the  idea  of  individual  personage  to  the  three, 
as  what  they  consider  a  fair  logical  inference  from 
the  doctrines  expressly  laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. The  people  called  Quakers  on  the  other  hand, 
considering  it  a  mystery  beyond  finite,  human  concep- 
tion, take  up  the  doctrine  as  expressly  laid  down  in  the 
Scripture,  and  have  not  considered  themselves  war- 
ranted in  making  deductions  however  specious." 

1  Testimony  of  Thos.  Evans,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  p.  298. 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  183 

"In  the  second  place,  the  people  called  Quakers 
have  always  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment: that  the  divine  and  human  nature  of  Jesus 
Christ  the  Saviour  were  united ;  that  thus  united  he 
suffered,  and  that  through  his  sufferings,  death,  and 
resurrection,  he  atoned  for  the  sins  of  men."  *  *  *  * 
"That  such  are  the  doctrines  entertained  and  adopted 
by  the  ancient  Society  of  Friends,  and  that  the  same 
doctrines  are  still  entertained  by  the  Orthodox  party 
aforesaid,  to  which  party  your  orator  belongs.  That 
these  doctrines  are  with  the  said  religious  Society 
fundamental,  and  any  individual  entertaining  sen- 
timents and  opinions  contrary  to  all  or  any  of  the 
above-mentioned  doctrines,  is  held  not  to  be  in  the 
same  faith  with  the  Society  of  Friends,  or  people 
called  Quakers,  and  is  treated  accordingly."1 

Samuel  Bettle,  clerk  of  the  Orthodox  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  testified  as  follows: 

"  Question.  Did  ancient  Friends  accord  in  senti- 
ment with  the  other  Protestant  sects,  in  regard  to  the 
atonement,  the  trinity,  and  the  divine  authority  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  divine  nature  of  the  Saviour. 

"  Answer.  As  far  as  I  know  the  profession  of  other 
Protestant  sects  on  these  subjects,  Friends  agree  with 
them  in  substance,  as  explained  in  my  examination  in 
chief.  On  reflection,  I  do  believe  there  is  a  discrimi- 
nation in  respect  to  the  Scriptures.  Friends  do  not 
profess  to  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  word 
spoken  of  by  the  evangelist  John;  —  they  hold  that 
Christ  was  the  Word,  but  they  believe  that  the  Scrip- 
tures were  the  product  of  revelation  from  God,  and 
in  that  sense  the  words  of  God."2 

1  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  pp.  1,  6,  7.  2  Ibid.  p.  78. 


184:  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

As  we  know  of  no  Protestant  sect  that  profess  to 
believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  "the  Word  spoken  of  by 
the  Evangelist  John" — the  Word  that  was  in  the  "be- 
ginning with  God  and  was  God,1  —  we  may  infer  that 
the  question  was  answered  by  Samuel  Bettle  in  the 
affirmative. 

From  this  testimony,  given  in  a  court  of  equity,  we 
must  conclude  that  the  orthodox  party  then  professed 
to  hold  substantially  the  same  doctrines,  in  regard  to 
the  Scriptures,  the  Trinity,  original  sin,  and  atone- 
ment, that  were  held  by  the  Church  of  England  and 
"  other  Protestant  Trinitarian  sects"  and  we  know 
from  the  testimony  of  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  and 
other  distinguished  churchmen,  that  Joseph  John 
Gurney  was,  in  their  estimation,  thoroughly  orthodox. 
It  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  the  Or- 
thodox party  in  Philadelphia,  New  York,  and  Balti- 
more professed,  in  LSJS,  the  same  doctrines  as  Joseph 
John  Gurney,  although  many  leading  members  of  that 
part}-  have  since  disavowed  them. 

Their  disavowal  may  be  found  in  "An  Appeal  for 
the  Ancient  Doctrines  of  the  Religious  Society  of 
Friends,"  published  by  direction  of  the  Orthodox 
Yearly  Meeting,  held  at  Arch  Street  House,  Philadel- 
phia, in  the  year  1847.  This  document  is  chiefly  a 
review  of  the  doctrinal  writings  of  Joseph  John  Gur- 
ney, containing  many  extracts  from  his  works,  with- 
out the  insertion  of  his  name.  After  contrasting  his 
views  with  those  of  the  early  Friends,  in  relation  to 
reason  and  faith,  imputative  righteousness,  justifica- 
tion, and  sanctification  :  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ; 
the   distinct   personality  of  Father,   Son,   and   Holy 


See  Cruden's  Cone.,  article  Word. 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  185 

Spirit;  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body;  they  proceed 
as  follows :  — 

"  These  passages  here  brought  together  contain 
sentiments  in  many  respects  at  variance  with  those 
held  by  our  ancient  Friends,  and  always  professed  by 
our  Religious  Society.  There  are  others  of  similar 
character  scattered  through  these  works,  and  many 
which  are  unsatisfactory,  either  on  account  of  want 
of  clearness  and  consistency  with  our  principles,  or 
containing  terms  which  Friends  do  not  approve.  That 
in  various  places  Christian  doctrine  is  supported  on 
Scriptural  ground  is  undoubtedly  true  ;  and  it  may  be 
owing  to  this  circumstance  that  many,  even  in  our 
own  Society,  have  not  appreciated  the  weighty  objec- 
tions to  which,  in  many  respects,  these  writings  are 
liable.  We  believe  the  sentiments  contained  in  the 
passages  which  we  have  quoted  have  had  an  injurious 
influence,  in  producing  feelings  of  discord  and  di- 
vision among  Friends ;  and  however  these  feelings 
may  have  been  increased  by  other  causes,  they  are, 
we  believe,  mainly  to  be  attributed  to  the  publication 
and  circulation  of  those  writings."  * 

As  the  most  elaborate  of  those  writings,  "The  Es- 
says on  Christianity "  appeared  in  1825,  and  some 
others  of  Gurney's  doctrinal  writings  were  published 
at  an  earlier  date ;  it  is  very  remarkable  that  his 
errors  were  not  detected  and  exposed  by  the  lynx- 
eyed  critics  among  the  orthodox  party  in  Philadelphia 
prior  to  the  lamented  separation  of  1827.  Had  they 
then  seen  and  acknowledged  that  the  doctrines  called 
orthodox  are  not  consistent  with  primitive  Christian- 


1  An  Appeal,  &c,  p.  51. 
16*  2E 


186  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

ity,  as  professed  by  the  early  Friends,  the  calamitous 
effects  of  that  separation  might  have  been  avoided. 

In  addition  to  their  "Appeal  for  the  Ancient  Doc- 
trines," we  have,  in  a  recent  publication,  the  corrobo- 
rating testimony  of  Jonathan  Evans,  the  prime  mover 
and  leader  of  the  opposition  to  Elias  Hicks  and  his 
friends. 

In  the  year  1837,  he  wrote  to  John  Wilbur  a  letter 
containing  the  following  passage  :  — 

"This  man,  J.  J.  Gurney,  because  he  has  written 
much,  is  considered  very  learned,  highly  polished,  and 
an  acute  reasoner,  and  being  very  rich,  and  living  in 
high  style,  is  greatly  caressed,  and  esteemed  as  almost 
a  prodigy  among  us.  I  have  perused  a  great  deal  of 
his  writings,  and  have  been  sorely  distressed  at  the 
darkness  and  confusion  which  is  almost  inseparable 
from  their  contents.  The  Hebrew  and  Greek  lan- 
guages being  very  limited,  one  word  in  them  will 
sometimes  embrace  several  significations,  some  of 
which  will  be  in  entire  contrast  with  others ;  this  he 
has  caught  at,  and  then  made  use  of  those  opposite 
senses  to  vary  the  present  translation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  to  promote  his  purpose  in  undervaluing 
and  contradicting  the  solid  sense  and  judgment  of  our 
ancient  Friends,  that  he  may  the  more  readily  intro- 
duce and  propagate  Episcopalian  doctrines.  lie  tries 
to  make  out  that  the  eating  of  the  flesh,  and  drinking 
the  blood  of  Christ,  means  a  belief  in  his  incarnation, 
thus  lowering  down  that  deep  experience  and  blessed 
fellowship  in  spirit  with  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  his  bap- 
tisms and  sufferings,  to  a  mere  assent  of  the  human 
mind, — that  the  gospel,  which  is  preached  in  or  to 
every  human  being,  means  the  outward  preaching  of 
the  gospel  doctrines,  that  is,  the  declaration  of  the 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  187 

atonement  of  Christ;  that  the  name  of  Jesus  does  not 
signify  his  power,  but  only  to  ask  of  the  Father  that  he 
would  grant  our  petitions,  merely  because  of  his  be- 
loved Son,  Jesus  Christ ;  that  therefore  we  are  not  to 
look  for  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  a 
qualification  to  pray,  but  to  push  forward  into  this 
offering  whenever  we  incline  to  it ;  and  many  other 
changes  he  makes  which  I  can  call  by  no  other  name 
than  perversions.  He  endeavors  to  make  out  that  our 
primitive  Friends  were  under  mistaken  views,  in 
order  that  he  may  with  more  facility  lay  waste  the 
doctrines  and  testimonies  they  held,  and  prepare  us 
to  embrace  new  schemes  which  will  be  more  accept- 
able to  the  unregenerate  man ;  liberate  us  from 
the  mortifying  operation  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  and 
cause  us  as  a  Society  to  be  more  respected  by  the  car- 
nal, superficial  professors  of  religion  in  the  several 
denominations."  l 

In  reply  to  these  severe  strictures  on  the  doctrines 
and  motives  of  J.  J.  Gurney,  it  may  safely  be  asserted 
that  he  was  sincere  in  his  professions,  and  therefore 
entitled  to  respect ;  but  we  can  only  surmise  what 
motives  could  have  induced  the  leaders  of  the  Ortho- 
dox party  in  1827-28,  to  give  their  countenance  and 
support  to  the  promulgation  of  doctrines  they  have 
since  disavowed. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  two  English  ministers, 
Thomas  Shillitoe  and  George  Jones,  who,  while  in 
America,  were  understood  by  the  public  to  preach  the 
doctrines  commonly  called  orthodox,  found  it  incum- 
bent on  them,  in  the  prospect  of  death,  to  bear  their 
testimony  against  the  writings  of  Joseph  John  Gur- 

1  Journal  and  Cor.  John  Wilbur,  p.  228. 


183  THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY. 

ney,  and  one  of  them  confessed  his  contrition  for  not 
having  done  it,  as  required  by  a  sense  of  duty,  at  an 
earlier  date.  Three  days  before  his  decease,  Thomas 
ShilHtoe  requested  a  friend  to  commit  to  writing  the 
following  declaration  "against  the  generality  of  the 
writings  of  J.  J.  Gurnev:  "  "I  declare  the  author  is 
an  Episcopalian,  not  a  Quaker.  I  apprehend  J.  J. 
Gurney  is  no  Quaker  in  principle.  Episcopalian  views 
were  imbibed  from  his  education,  and  still  remain 
with  him.  I  love  the  man  for  the  work's  sake,  so  far 
as  it  goes,  but  be  has  never  been  emptied  from  vessel 
to  vessel,  and  from  sieve  to  sieve,  nor  known  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  fire  to  cleanse  the  floor 
of  his  heart  from  bis  Episcopalian  notions.  He  has 
spread  a  linsey -woolly  garment  over  our  members; 
but  in  a  future  day  it  will  be  stripped  off,  it  will  be 
too  short  for  them,  as  they  will  be  without  Jesus 
Christ  the  Lord.  This  is  my  dying  testimony,  and  I 
must  sign  it.  If  I  had  been  faithful,  T  should  have 
expressed  it  in  the  last  Yearly  Meeting  of  ministers 
and  elders  [1836],  but  I  hope  I  shall  be  forgiven.  Oh  ! 
Lord  accept  me  with  the  best  I  have."  1 

George  Jones,  in  a  letter,  dated  9th  of  5th  month, 
1839,  addressed  to  the  members  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing of  Ministers  and  Elders,  London,  after  expressing 
his  decided  disapprobation  of  the  writings  of  J.  J. 
Gurney,  thus  continues :  "  These  things  have  rested 
much  on  my  mind,  particularly  during  my  present  ill- 
ness, and  it  must  be  very  evident  that  J.  J.  Gurney 's 
interpretations  of  the  Scriptures  are  so  contrary  to 
those  of  the  Society  from  its  first  commencement, 
that  if   his  interpretations   are  to   prevail,  then  the 

1  J.  Wilbur's  Narrative,  p.  345. 


THE    DOCTRINAL    CONTROVERSY.  189 

Society  must  change  its  ground,  and  become  an  in- 
consistent mixture  of  Quakerism  and  Episcopalian- 
ism."  *  *  *  *  '-'These  things  have  deeply  impressed 
and  afflicted  the  minds  of  our  dear  Friends  Thomas 
Shillitoe  and  John  Barclay,  who  are  in  mercy 
gathered  to  their  everlasting  rest."1 

As  the  objectionable  writings  of  Joseph  John  Gur- 
ney  had  been  published  and  widely  circulated  by 
Friends  twelve  years  and  upwards,  before  these  dis- 
avowals were  made,  may  we  not  conclude  that  the 
unfaithfulness  to  manifested  duty,  so  feelingly  con- 
fessed  by  Thomas  Shillitoe,  was  no  less  attributable 
to  many  other  Friends  in  England  and  America,  who 
gave  their  countenance  to  doctrines  that,  in  their 
hearts,  they  did  not  approve?  Alas!  for  poor  human 
nature  ;  those  Friends  could  denounce  the  unpopular 
views  attributed  to  Elias  Hicks,  but  they  could  not 
bear  witness  against  the  innovations  of  popular  the- 
ology, when  dressed  up  in  attractive  language  and 
recommended  by  the  possessors  of  wealth  and  high 
social  position. 

May  we  not  apply  to  Jonathan  Evans  and  his  party, 
the  language  he  used  in  relation  to  Joseph  John 
Gurney:  they  supported  a  scheme  which  would  "lib- 
erate us  from  the  mortifying  operation  of  the  cross  of 
Christ  and  cause  us  as  a  Society  to  be  more  respected 
by  the  carnal,  superficial  professors  of  religion  in  the 
several  denominations."  According  to  their  own 
mode  of  reasoning,  they  were  responsible  for  the 
doctrines  preached  by  the  English  Friends,  some  of 
whom  held  precisely  the  views  of  Gurney,  and  yet 
were  acknowledged  by  the  orthodox  party  in  Phila- 
delphia as  sound  gospel  ministers. 

1  J.  Wilbur's  Narrative,  p.  348. 
2E2 


190  MEETINGS    FOR    DISCIPLE 


CHAPTEE  X. 

DISCIPLINE   OF   THE    SOCIETY   OF   FRIENDS. 

The  origin  and  character  of  that  Bystem  of  Church 
government  which,  in  its  essential  features,  was  re- 
commended by  George  Fox,  and.  with  some  modifi- 
cations, adopted  by  the  Society  of  Friends,  have 
been  noticed  in  the  preceding  narrative,1  and  more 
fully  described  in  a  previous  work.1  It  is  therefore 
deemed  needless  to  enter  into  its  details,  further  than 
may  be  requisite  to  promote  a  clear  understanding 
of  the  transactions  to  be  related. 

MEETINGS    FOB    DISCIPLINE. 

The  meetings  for  discipline  in  the  Society  of 
Friends  are  called  Preparative,  Monthly,  Quarterly, 
and  Yearlv.  The  Preparative  meeting  generally  eon- 
sists  of  a  Bin  el  e  congregation :  it  is  not  a  meeting  of 
record  ;  its  purpose  is  to  prepare  and  report  busin<  ss 
for  the  Monthly  meeting  to  which  it  is  subordinate. 
The  Monthly  meeting  may  consist  of  a  Bingle  con- 
gregation, or  be  composed  of  Beveral  Preparative  meet- 
ings contiguous  to  each  other.  This  is  considered 
the  executive  organ  of  the  Society,  being  intrusted 
with  the  power  of  receiving  or  disowning  members, 
granting  or  accepting  certificates  of  removal,  direct- 
ing and  recording  the  solemnization  of  marriag< 
keeping  a   register  of  births  and  deaths,  providing 

1  See  Hist.  Vol.  I.  Chap.  XVIII..  and  Vol.  II.  Chap.  X. 

8  See  Dissertation  on  Discipline,  Jannev's  Life  of  G.  Fox.  p.  479. 


MEETINGS    FOR    DISCIPLINE.  191 

for  the  support  of  the  poor  and  the  education  of 
their  children,  inquiring  at  stated  periods  into  the 
condition  of  the  Society  within  its  limits,  and  for- 
warding an  account  of  the  same  to  the  Quarterly 
meeting.  The  Quarterly  meeting  is  usually  com- 
posed of  several  Monthly  meetings  contiguous  to 
each  other,  and  in  some  cases  it  is  held  alternately 
at  different  places.  Its  purpose  is  to  receive  the  re- 
ports from  the  Monthly  meetings,  which  are  subordi- 
nate to  it,  and  embody  them  in  a  general  report  to 
the  Yearly  meeting.  It  has  a  general  supervision  of 
the  Monthly  meetings  composing  it. 

The  Yearly  meeting  is  composed  of  all  the  Quar- 
terly meetings  within  certain  limits,  which  send  re- 
presentatives to  attend  it  and  lay  before  it  a  written 
report.  The  representatives  have  no  more  power 
than  other  members  in  attendance,  except  that  they 
are  required  to  meet  together  and  nominate  a  clerk, 
and  to  examine  and  report  upon  any  other  business 
that  may  be  referred  to  them.  Any  member,  who 
may  feel  himself  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of  a 
Monthly  meeting,  may.  after  a  copy  of  his  testimony 
of  disownment  is  delivered  to  him,  give  due  notice 
of  his  intention  to  appeal  to  the  Quarterly  meeting; 
and  if  the  Quarterly  meeting  shall  decide  against 
him,  he  may  in  like  manner  appeal  to  the  Yearly 
meeting,  whose  judgment  in  the  case  is  final. 

The  Yearly  meeting  exercises  a  general  supervi- 
sion over  all  the  meetings  within  its  limits,  and  issues 
advices  in  relation  to  the  state  of  the  Society  and  the 
support  of  its  testimonies.  It  is  the  highest  tribunal 
in  the  Society,  and  has  power  to  enact,  modify,  or 
abrogate  the  rules  of  discipline ;  but  this  authority 
is  usually  exercised  with  great  caution  and  delibera- 


192  MEETINGS    FOR    DISCIPLINE. 

tion,  and  only  with  the  general  concurrence  of  those 
in  attendance.  When  an  alteration  in  the  rules  of 
discipline  is  thought  desirable,  the  usual  course  is, 
for  a  member  "feeling  the  concern  "  to  propose  it  in 
his  Monthly  meeting,  and  if  there  approved,  the  pro- 
position is  forwarded  in  the  report  to  the  Quarterly 
meeting,  where  it  is  considered,  and  if  united  with, 
forwarded  in  the  report  to  the  Yearly  meeting. 

The  several  Yearly  meetings  throughout  the  world 
are  independent  of  each  other,  except  the  Yearly 
meeting  of  Dublin,  which,  "in  matters  of  faith  and 
principle,"  is  subordinate  to  that  of  London.  The 
Yearly  meetings  prior  to  the  year  1827,  were  as  fol- 
lows:  London,  Dublin,  New  England,  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
Ohio,  and  Indiana.  They  kept  up  an  epistolary  cor- 
respondence, and,  in  all  essential  points,  their  codes 
of  discipline  were  nearly  the  same. 

In  all  the  meetings  for  discipline,  every  member 
not  under  dealings  for  a  breach  of  discipline,  is  at 
liberty  to  sit  and  participate  in  the  proceedings. 
The  men  and  women  meet  in  separate  apartments, 
and  are  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  same  meeting, 
each  having  a  clerk  of  its  own,  but  in  some  cases 
they  appoint  joint  committees  to  prepare  business  in 
which  both  branches  are  interested.  The  clerks  are 
nominated  bv  committees,  and  after  consideration 
appointed  by  the  meeting.  It  is  the  duty  of  the 
clerk  to  gather  the  sense  or  judgment  of  the  mem- 
bers present,  and  to  record  their  decisions  on  such 
questions  as  may  come  before  them. 

"In  these  solemn  assemblies,"  says  Win.  Penn,  "no 
one  presides  among  them  after  the  manner  of  the 
assemblies  of  other  people,   Christ  only  being  their 


MEETINGS    FOR    DISCIPLINE.  193 

president,  as  he  is  pleased  to  appear  in  life  and  wis- 
dom in  any  one  or  more  of  them,  to  whom,  whatever 
be  their  capacity  or  degree,  the  rest  adhere  with  a 
firm  unity,  not  of  authority  but  conviction;  which  is  the 
divine  authority  and  way  of  Christ's  power  and  spirit 
in  his  people;  making  good  his  blessed  promise 
that  '  He  would  be  in  the  midst  of  his,  where  and 
whenever  they  were  met  together  in  his  name,  even 
to  the  end  of  the  world.'  " 

It  is  obvious  that  a  church  thus  constituted  cannot 
act  upon  the  principle  of  political  bodies  where  a  ma- 
jority governs;  and  it  is  still  more  objectionable  for 
a  minority  to  assume  the  right  to  govern.  The  only 
way  to  preserve  "the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond 
of  peace"  is  for  every  member  who  participates  in 
such  meetings  to  draw  nigh  to  the  Fountain  of  light 
and  life,  in  order  to  ask  wisdom  of  God,  "  who  giveth 
to  all  men  liberally  and  upbraideth  not."  While 
waiting  upon  Him  in  this  frame  of  mind,  each  mem- 
ber is  at  liberty,  under  a  sense  of  duty,  to  express  his 
views  with  meekness,  and  if  they  proceed  from  the 
pure  teachings  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  they  will  meet 
the  witness  for  truth  in  other  minds,  and  being  re- 
sponded to,  will  generally  prevail  over  the  meeting. 
It  sometimes  occurs  that  one  of  the  younger  mem- 
bers, being  unbiassed  and  wholly  resigned  to  follow 
his  impressions  of  duty,  becomes  the  instrument  to 
point  out  the  right  course,  which  being  acceded  to  by 
others,  is  adopted  by  the  meeting ;  but  in  most  cases 
the  older  and  more  experienced  members  are  expected 
to  take  the  lead  in  all  matters  of  importance.  Although 
there  may,  at  first,  be  some  diversity  of  sentiment,  it 
seldom  happens  that  a  meeting  where  Divine  love 
prevails,  is  long  in  doubt  concerning  any  matter  that 
IV— 17 


194  MEETINGS    FOR    DISCIPLINE. 

is  necessary  to  be  decided.  A  meeting  may  be  thrown 
into  confusion  by  entering  into  the  discussion  of 
questions  with  which  it  has  no  proper  concern,  in 
which  case,  stepping  out  of  its  province,  it  has  no  right 
to  expect  divine  guidance.  If  a  considerable  degree 
of  unanimity  cannot  be  attained,  it  is  best  not  to  insist 
upon  a  decision,  but  rather  to  wait  and  adjourn  from 
time  to  time,  or  'dismiss  the  question.  When  disci 
pline  cannot  be  exercised  with  good  feelings  and  tol- 
erable unanimity,  it  is  better  to  stand  still ;  for  if  unity 
and  love  do  not  prevail,  it  is  an  evidence  that  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  does  not  sanction  our  proceedings, 
and,  like  the  Israelites  of  old,  we  should  be  careful 
not  to  move  forward  so  long  as  "  the  cloud  rests  upon 
the  tabernacle,  whether  it  be  two  clays,  or  a  month,  or 
a  year."  ■ 

This  system  of  church  government,  being  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principles  of  Christianity,  is  beautiful 
and  perfect  in  theory;  and  so  long  as  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  was  permitted  to  bear  rule,  producing  love  and 
unity  in  the  body,  it  was  completely  successful  in  prac- 
tice. It  is  not,  however,  so  well  adapted  to  a  divided 
church,  in  which  jealousy,  party  spirit,  and  contention 
prevail.  The  difficulty  and  delicacy  of  the  duty  im- 
posed on  the  clerk,  of  collecting  and  recording  the 
judgment  of  the  meeting,  without  a  vote  being  taken, 
is  so  great,  that  in  times  of  excitement  and  conflicting 
opinions,  few  persons  can  be  found  competent  to  the 
task.  It  is  maintained  by  some  that,  not  numbers, 
but  weight  of  religious  character,  is  the  true  ground 
of  decision.     But  this  does  not  remove  the  difficulty; 


1  This  paragraph  is  reproduced  from  my  Dissertation  on  Chris- 
tian Discipline,  appended  to  Life  of  G.  Fox,  p.  486. 


MEETINGS    FOR    DISCIPLINE.  195 

for  who  is  competent  to  estimate  the  weight  and  de- 
cide the  preponderance  when  party  spirit  shakes  the 
scales?  If  the  clerk  is  to  be  the  sole  judge,  he  and  a 
small  minority  united  with  him  in  sentiment,  may 
carry  their  measures  over  the  heads  of  a  large  major- 
ity more  weighty  than  themselves  as  regards  religious 
experience  and  consistency  of  conduct. 

In  view  of  these  difficulties,  it  may  be  asked,  Shall 
we  then,  in  seasons  of  unusual  excitement  and  aerita- 
tion,  determine  questions  in  meetings  for  discipline 
by  the  voice  of  a  majority,  as  they  do  in  most  other 
religious  societies?  To  adopt  the  system  of  voting  in 
Friends'  meetings  for  discipline  would  be  a  departure 
from  the  principles  of  church  government  originally 
established,  and  would  evince  a  want  of  confidence  in 
the  promise  of  Christ,  aLo!  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  "  For  when  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I 
in  the  midst  of  them." 

By  adhering  to  the  course  pursued  by  the  Society 
in  its  earlier  days,  all  the  difficulties  alluded  to  may 
be  overcome.  No  question  was  decided  against  the 
judgment  and  continued  opposition  of  a  respectable 
minority.  If  such  a  minority  decidedly  objected  to 
any  measure,  it  was  not  forced  through  the  meeting, 
but  postponed  or  abandoned,  unless  a  more  general 
acquiescence  could  be  attained.  Some  inconveniences 
may,  at  times,  attend  this  course,  but  great  benefits 
will  ultimately  result  from  it.  The  dangers  attendant 
on  hasty  action  may  thus  be  avoided,  and  the  exercise 
of  patience,  forbearance  and  condescension  will  pro- 
mote the  growth  of  all  the  qualities  that  adorn  and 
ennoble  the  Christian  character. 

To  decide  questions  of  church  discipline  in  this 


196  MEETINGS    FOR   DISCIPLINE. 

maimer  requires  the  assent  of  more  than  a  bare  ma- 
jority of  the  members  in  attendance ;  it  implies  a 
general  acquiescence,  and  does  not  call  in  question 
that  great  and  beneficent  principle,  which  lies  at  the 
root  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  in  America  —  the 
right  of  the  majority  to  govern. 

In  the  printed  epistle  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
London,  dated  1735,  the  following  advice  is  given  in 
relation  to  meetings  for  discipline:  "We  recommend 
as  a  means  very  conducive  to  the  preservation  of 
Friends,  a  people  of  one  heart  and  one  way,  for  the 
good  of  themselves  and  their  children  after  them,  that 
the  discipline  of  the  church  in  the  several  meetings 
instituted  for  that  purpose  be  kept  up  and  managed 
in  a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  love.  Let  all  things  in  those 
meetings  be  done  with  charity  ;  let  the  love  of  God  in 
an  especial  manner  rule  in  their  hearts;  and  therein 
though  sometimes  different  sentiments  may  arise,  yet 
will  every  particular  member  have  the  same  thing  in 
view,  viz.,  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  his  church 
and  people,  and  in  this  singleness  of  heart  they  will 
best  promote  the  great  end  and  service  of  those 
meetings." 

These  advices  correspond  with  the  views  of  Geo. 
Fox,  who,  in  his  epistles,  frequently  exhorts  Friends 
"to  hold  all  their  meetings  in  the  power  of  God." 

"So  Friends  are  not,"  he  says,  "to  meet  like 
a  company  of  people  about  town  or  parish  busi- 
ness, neither  in  their  men's  nor  women's  meetings; 
but  to  wait  upon  the  Lord ;  and  feeling  his  power 
and  spirit  to  lead  them  and  order  them  to  his  glory ; 
that  so  whatsoever  they  may  do,  they  may  do  it  to 
the  praise  and  glory  of  God,  and  in  unity  in  the  faith, 


MEETINGS    OF    MINISTERS   AND   ELDERS.       197 

and  iii  the  spirit,  and  in  fellowship  in  the  order  of 
the  gospel,  &C."1 

OVERSEERS. 

The  Rules  of  Discipline  require  that  in  every 
Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends,  a  proper  number  of 
judicious  men  and  women  Friends  be  appointed  to 
the  Station  of  Overseers;  "whose  duty  it  shall  be  to 
exercise  a  vigilant  and  tender  care  over  their  fellow- 
members,  that  if  anything  repugnant  to  the  harmony 
and  good  order  of  the  Society  appears  amongst 
them,  it  may  be  timely  attended  to.  And  to  prevent 
the  introduction  of  all  unnecessary  and  premature 
complaints  into  meetings  of  discipline,  it  is  advised 
that  if  any  member  shall  have  cause  of  complaint 
against  another,  it  be  mentioned  to  the  overseers, 
who  are  to  see  that  the  party  complained  of  has  been 
treated  with,  according  to  gospel  order,  previously  to 
the  case  being  reported  to  the  Preparative  or  Monthly 
Meeting." 

MEETINGS    OF    MINISTERS   AND    ELDERS. 

The  Society  of  Friends,  from  its  rise  to  the  pres- 
ent day,  has  always  maintained  that  gospel  ministry 
is  not  of  man,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
agreeably  to  the  apostolical  charge  :  — "  As  every 
man  hath  received  the  gift,  even  so  minister  the  same 
one  to  another  as  good  stewards  of  the  manifold 
grace  of  God.  If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as 
the  oracles  of  God ;  if  any  man  minister,  let  him  do 
it  as  of  the  ability  which  God  giveth :  that  God  in 
all  things  may  be  glorified,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to 


1  Fox's  Epistles,  pp.  349,  350. 
17*  IV  — 2  F 


198       MEETINGS    OF    MINISTERS    AND    ELDERS. 

whom  be  praise  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever." 
1  Pet.  iv.  10. 

Soon  after  the  rise  of  the  Society,  the  ministers 
occasionally  met  together  for  consultation  and  mutual 
aid,  and  as  early  as  the  year  1672  a  Yearly  Meeting 
of  ministers  was  held  in  London. 

One  of  the  objects  contemplated  in  the  establish- 
ment of  such  meetings  is  thus  stated  in  an  epistle  of 
George  Fox,  dated  1074.  "At  your  general  assem- 
blies of  the  ministry  at  London,  or  elsewhere,  ex- 
amine as  it  was  at  first,  whether  all  the  ministers 
that  go  forth  into  the  countries,  do  walk  as  becomes 
the  gospel  ;  for  that  you  know  was  one  end  of  that 
meeting,  to  prevent  and  take  away  scandal ;  and  to 
examine  whether  all  do  keep  in  the  government  of 
Christ  Jesus,  that  preach  him,  and  in  the  order  of 
the  gospel,  and  to  exhort  them  that  do  not.  For  the 
foundation  is  already  laid  which  is  Christ,  and  his 
government  is  set  up,  of  the  increase  of  which  there 
is  no  end." 

The  first  establishment  of  meetings  for  worship 
and  discipline  in  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  has 
already  been  related.1 

■ 

A  Yearly  Meeting  of  ministers  was  also  instituted 
at  an  early  date,  as  appears  by  the  following  minute 
of  the  general  Yearly  Meeting  held  in  Philadelphia 
in  the  year  1665,  viz.  :  "It  is  agreed  that  Friends  in 
the  ministry  do  meet  together  on  First-day  morning 
at  the  seventh  hour,  before  the  public  general  meet- 
ing, in  sueh  place  as  shall  be  prepared  by  the  public 
Friends  in  each  town  where  the  meeting  shall  be 
held  that  year,"     At  the  same   time  it  was  concluded 


1  Hist.,  Vol.  II.  pp.  374,  384. 


MEETINGS    OF    MINISTERS    AND    ELDERS.        199 

that  the  General  Yearly  Meeting  for  Pennsylvania 
and  New  Jersey  should  thereafter  meet  alternately  at 
Philadelphia  and  Burlington. 

In  the  year  1714,  the  Yearly  Meeting  for  Pennsyl- 
vania and  New  Jersey,  at  the  request  of  some  of  the 
Quarterly  meetings,  issued  the  following  minute: 
11  This  meeting  agrees,  that  the  Quarterly  meeting  do 
recommend  to  each  Monthly  meeting  within  their 
respective  limits  that  they  choose  two  or  more 
Friends  out  of  each  Monthly  meeting,  (where  meet- 
ings of  ministers  are  or  shall  be  held,)  to  sit  with 
the  ministers  in  their  meetings;  taking  care  that  the 
Friends  chosen  for  that  service  be  prudent,  solid 
Friends,  and  that  they  do  carefully  discharge  their 
trust  in  such  matters,  and  in  such  manner  as  the 
Monthly  meeting  shall  from  time  to  time  see  occa- 
sion to  appoint  them."1 

This  appears  to  be  the  first  advice  issued  by  the 
Yearly  Meeting  in  relation  to  the  appointment  of 
elders,  and  it  is  observable  that  they  were  to  dis- 
charge their  trust  in  obedience  to  the  directions  of 
the  Monthly  meetings.  Ministers  and  Elders  held 
Preparative,  Quarterly,  and  Yearly  Meetings  of  their 
own,  which  were  frequently  called  Select  Meetings. 
At  these  meetings,  Queries  relating  to  their  conduct 
and  conversation,  aud  the  soundness  of  the  ministry, 
were  periodically  considered  and  answered.  It  wras 
expressly  provided  by  a  rule  of  discipline  that  they 
should  not  "  in  any  wTise  interfere  with  the  business 
of  any  Meeting  for  Discipline"  Their  meetings  were 
not  classed  among  the  meetings  for  discipline,  having 
no  power  to  control  the  other  members,  nor  to  pro- 
pose any  rules  relating  to  faith  or  practice. 

1  MS.  Discipline  of  1762. 


200       MEETINGS    OF    MINISTERS    AND    ELDERS. 

In  1797,  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia  is- 
sued the  following  minute  :  "When  the  ^ifts  of  min- 
isters  are  considered  and  approved  by  a  Monthly 
meeting,  and  a  minute  thereof  forwarded  to  the 
Quarterly  meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders,  the  sense 
and  concurrence  of  that  meeting  ought  to  be  had 
before  such  minister  be  reputed  as  a  received  and 
approved  minister,  or  admitted  to  sit  in  the  meetings 
of  Ministers  and  Elders,  or  travel  abroad  in  the  min- 
istry." And  finally,  the  rule  of  discipline  now  in 
force  was  established  in  1806,  that  the  Preparative 
meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders  (within  the  limits 
of  each  Monthly  meeting)  should  take  the  initiatory 
step  in  the  recommendation  of  minister*  When 
any  Friend  has  frequently  appeared  as  a  minister, 
and  that  meeting  apprehends  it  is  seasonable  and 
proper  to  bring  the  Bubject  before  the  Monthly  meet- 
ing, it  is  at  liberty  to  do  so;  and  if  the  Monthly 
meeting  unites  in  believing  that  a  ffift  in  the  min- 
istry  has  been  committed  to  the  individual,  the  case 
is  to  be  forwarded  to  the  Quarterly  meeting  of  Min- 
isters and  Elders,  and  if  concurrence  is  there  ex- 
pressed, the  Friend  is  to  be  considered  an  approved 
minister. 

It  will  be  observed  that  all  the  proceedings  in  such 
cases  are  predicated  upon  the  ground  that  a  gift  in 
the  ministry  can  only  be  conferred  by  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  and  that  no  ecclesiastical  authority  can 
give  a  call  to  that  solemn  service.  When  a  gift  has 
been  conferred,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  ac- 
knowledge it,  and  t<>  give  Buch  counsel  and  encour- 
agement as  may  be  deemed  appropriate.  When  a 
minister  thus  acknowledged,  has  a  prospeet  <A'  trav- 
elling and  appointing   meetings    beyond  the  limits 


MEETINGS    OF    MINISTERS   AND   ELDERS.        201 

of  his  Quarterly  meeting,  it  is  advised  that  the  sub- 
ject be  laid  before  the  Monthly  meeting,  and  if  con- 
curred with,  that  a  certificate  be  granted  by  that 
meeting,  recommending  him  to  the  Christian  care 
and  attention  of  Friends  where  he  may  be  called  to 
labor.  If  the  prospect  of  religious  service  be  ex- 
tensive, the  certificate  thus  granted  is  to  be  laid  be- 
fore the  Quarterly  meeting  for  discipline ;  and  if  the 
field  of  labor  lies  "  beyond  the  sea,"  the  concurrence 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders  is 
required.  The  meeting  last  concerned  in  sanction- 
ing such  religious  visits,  is  required  to  see  that  a 
suitable  companion  be  provided  to  travel  with  the 
minister,  and  if  deemed  needful,  that  pecuniary  aid 
for  the  expenses  of  the  journey  be  furnished ;  but 
such  aid  is  not  offered  to  those  who  have  means  to 
pay  their  own  expenses  without  diminishing  the  com- 
fort of  their  families ;  nor  is  anything  in  the  nature 
of  a  compensation  for  preaching  sanctioned  by  the 
discipline  or  approved  writings  of  Friends. 

It  was  the  advice  of  Geo.  Fox,  frequently  reiterated, 
that  Friends  should  not  oppose  or  judge  one  another 
in  meetings  for  divine  worship.  Thus  he  writes: 
"All  Friends  in  your  meetings  do  not  quench  the 
Spirit.  And  take  heed,  and  do  not  judge  one  another 
in  the  meetings,  but  have  patience  until  the  meeting 
be  done  :  so  that  if  any  have  anything  upon  him  to 
speak  to  another,  he  may  speak  to  him  after  the  meet- 
ing is  done;  that  will  cover  one  another's  weakness 
and  not  hurt  others."1 

In  accordance  with  this  advice  a  rule  of  discipline 
was  made,  and  is  still  in  force,  viz.:  "As  the  occasion 


1  Epistles  of  G.  F.,  p.  128. 
2F2 


202      MEETINGS    OF    MINISTERS    AND    ELDERS. 

of  our  religious  meetings  is  solemn,  a  care  should  be 
maintained  to  guard  against  anything  that  would  tend 
to  disorder  and  confusion  therein  ;  when  any  think 
they  have  aught  against  what  is  publicly  delivered, 
they  should  speak  to  the  party  privately,  and  if  any 
shall  oppose  a  minister  in  his  or  her  preaching  or 
exhortation,  or  keep  on  the  hat,  or  show  any  remark- 
able dislike  to  such  when  engaged  in  prayer,  let  them 
be  speedily  admonished  in  such  manner  as  may  be 
requisite,  unless  the  ministry  of  the  person  against 
whom  the  uneasiness  is  expressed,  has  been  disap- 
proved by  the  Monthly  Meeting."1 

The  Yearly  Meeting  minute  of  1714,  already  quoted, 
for  the  appointment  of  elders,  was  subsequently  ex- 
plained by  another  minute  to  apply  to  both  sexes,  and 
women  as  well  as  men  were  accordingly  appointed  to 
that  service  by  the  Monthly  Meetings. 

The  term  for  which  elders  were  appointed  was  not 
mentioned  in  the  Yearly  Meeting's  minute,  nor  was 
the  power  of  removal  by  Monthly  Meetings  expressly 
stated.  These  questions  will  be  found  important  in 
the  prosecution  of  this  examination,  and  can  best  be 
determined  by  reference  to  the  usage  which  ensued 
under  the  rule.  If  any  of  the  Monthly  Meetings  ap- 
pointed elders  for  a  limited  term,  or  exercised  the 
right  of  removing  them  from  their  stations,  we  may 
conclude  that  the  power  they  exercised  was  then 
conceded. 

The  first  appointment  made  by  Middletown  Monthly 
Meeting,  Bucks  County,  was  in  the  12th  month,  1714. 
The  minute  reads  as  follows:  "This  meeting  doth  ap- 
point Thomas  Baynes  and  John  Penquite  (according 


Bait.  Y.  M.,  Book  of  Disc,  as  adopted  in  1806. 


MEETINGS    OF    MINISTEKS    AND    ELDERS.       203 

to  the  order  of  the  Yearly  Meeting)  to  sit  with  the 
ministers  in  their  meetings ;  and  that  there  be  a  new 
election  every  year  or  oftener,  if  there  be  occasion."1 
In  the  7th  month,  1729,  the  same  meeting  placed  on 
record,  that  Thomas  Baynes  being  removed  from 
among  them,  they  appointed  John  Wildman  along 
with  Adam  Harker,  "  to  serve  in  his  stead  until  further 
orders"2  From  1730  the  Middletown  records  contain 
no  expressed  limitation  of  the  term  for  which  elders 
were  appointed. 

Falls  Monthly  Meeting,  held  11th  mo.  1714,  made 
its  first  appointment  of  elders  without  expressing  in 
the  minute  any  limitation  as  to  their  term  of  service. 
And  in  the  11th  month,  1726,  two  of  the  elders  for- 
merly appointed  having,  "through  age,"  grown  weak 
and  infirm,  and  not  "well  able  to  travel,"  two  others 
"were  appointed  in  their  places."3 

Newark  Monthly  Meeting,  (since  called  Kennet,) 
and  Concord  Monthly  Meeting,  both  of  which  be- 
longed to  a  Quarterly  Meeting  then  called  Chester, 
sometimes  made  their  appointment  of  elders  without 
limitation,  but  at  other  times  they  were  appointed  "to 
serve  till  further  orders." 

At  Concord  Monthly  Meeting,  in  the  year  1778,  a 
minute  was  made  as  follows :  "  This  meeting  hav- 
ing some  time  ago  recommended  to  the  Quarterly 
Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders,  Hannah  Carter 
as  an  elder,  do  now  discontinue  her  from  being  a 
member  thereof."  The  same  Monthly  Meeting,  in 
the  vear  1782,  reinstated  Hannah  Carter  in  the  sta- 


1  Middletown  M.  M.  Records,  A.,  p.  122. 

2  Ibid.  p.  233. 

8  Falls  Records,  1st  Vol.  to  1731. 


204        MEETINGS    OF    MINISTEKS    AND    ELDERS. 

tion  of  an  elder,  at  the  request  of  Birmingham  Pre- 
parative Meeting.1 

In  1777,  a  member  of  Concord  Monthly  Meeting, 
having  violated  a  rule  of  discipline,  made  an  acknowl- 
edgment for  the  offence,  which  was  accepted  ;  but  he 
being  at  the  time  an  elder,  was  removed  from  that 
station  by  the  Monthly  Meeting,  and  information 
thereof  given  to  the  Select  Meeting. 

The  Monthly  Meeting  of  Buckingham,  from  1720 
to  1746,  expressed  in  its  minutes  on  the  appointment 
of  elders  no  limitation  as  to  time,  but  in  the  latter 
year  a  Friend  was  appointed  to  that  station,  "till  fur- 
ther appointments." 

These  selections  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
power  to  remove  elders  from  their  stations  was  exer- 
cised by  the  Monthly  Meetings,  when  they  deemed  it 
expedient,  which,  however,  was  seldom  the  case.  The 
Yearly  Meeting's  minute  of  1714,  recommending  the 
appointment  of  elders,  directs  that  Monthly  Meetings 
shall  take  care  that  the  Friends  chosen  for  that  ser- 
vice "  do  carefully  discharge  their  trust,"  which  was 
doubtless  understood  to  imply  that  they  might  be 
removed  from  the  station,  if  their  trusts  were  not 
properly  and  faithfully  discharged. 

In  1806,  a  rule  of  discipline  was  adopted,  which, 
without  abridging  the  power  of  Monthly  Meet- 
ings to  deal  with  ministers  and  elders,  requires 
the  Select  Meetings  to  extend  timely  and  tender 
care  over  them,  provided  their  cases  have  not  been 
taken  up  by  a  "meeting  for  discipline.'"  The  min- 
ute reads  as  follows:  "If  any  acknowledged  mem- 
ber of  our  Meetings  of  Ministers  and  Elders  shall  at 
any  time  be  thought,  by  negligence,  unfaithfulness, 

1  Michener's  Retrospect,  p.  172. 


MEETINGS    OF    MINISTERS    AND   ELDEKS.       205 

or  otherwise,  to  have  lost  his  or  her  service  in  that 
station,  so  as  to  become  burthensome  and  the  subject 
of  uneasiness,  (yet  not  so  as  to  be  under  the  care  of  a 
meeting  of  discipline  on  that  account,  or  for  miscon- 
duct,) it  is  advised  that  a  timely  and  tender  care  be 
extended  to  such  person,  according  to  gospel  order: 
first  by  the  individuals  concerned,  and  then  by  the 
Preparative  Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders  to  which 
he  or  she  may  belong.  Should  these  labours  prove 
unavailing,  report  of  the  case  should  be  made  to  the 
Quarterly  Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders,  where 
a  few  Friends  should  be  deputed  to  assist  the  said 
Preparative  Meeting  in  a  further  extension  of  labour 
with  the  party ;  if  this  also  prove  unavailing,  and  on 
report  thereof  to  the  said  Quarterly  Meeting,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  said  Preparative  Meeting  has  fully  dis- 
charged its  duty  to  the  individual,  the  case  should 
then  be  transmitted  to  the  Monthly  Meeting  for  Dis- 
cipline of  which  the  party  is  a  member,  and  left  under 
its  care,  and  he  or  she  ought  from  that  time  to  refrain 
from  attending  any  such  meetings  until  they  shall 
again  be  recommended  or  appointed  as  at  first."  l 

On  examination  of  the  clause  in  parentheses  it  will 
appear  that  the  Select  Meetings  cannot  interfere  with 
any  case  where  a  minister  or  elder  is  under  the  care 
of  a  meeting  of  discipline  for  misconduct,  or  on  account 
of  having  become  burdensome  through  "  negligence, 
unfaithfulness,  or  otherwise."    ■ 

This  rule  of  discipline  was  doubtless  intended  to 
proride  a  method  of  exercising  a  tender  care  over 
ministers  and  elders  without  unnecessary  exposure, 
in  order  to  reconcile  differences  and  prevent  the  dis- 

1  Book  of  Discip.,  Bait.  Y.  M.,  1806. 
18 


206  MEETING    FOR    SUFFERINGS. 

cord  that  mi^ht  arise  from  the  discussion  of  their 
cases  in  the  Monthly  meetings.  But  it  does  not  de- 
prive the  meetings  for  discipline  of  original  jurisdic- 
tion in  such  cases,  and  certainly  never  was  intended 
to  screen  ministers  and  elders  from  being  dealt  with 
by  Monthly  meetings  when  occasion  required  it.  In 
the  progress  of  this  examination  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  Quarterly  Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders  in 
Philadelphia  denied  the  authority  of  a  Monthly  Meet- 
ing to  remove  some  of  its  elders  from  office  when  they 
had  ceased  to  be  in  unity  with  it,  thus  interfering 
with  the  business  of  a  meeting  for  discipline  in  viola- 
tion of  a  rule  established  by  the  Yearly  Meeting. 

MEETING   FOR    SUFFERINGS. 

The  institution  of  a  Meeting  for  Sufferings  by  the 
Yearly  Meeting  for  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey 
has  already  been  noticed.1 

It  was  designed,  as  its  name  indicates,  to  relieve 
the  sufferings  of  Friends,  who  at  that  time  were  ex- 
posed, in  the  frontier  settlements,  to  the  ravages  of 
war.  Its  functions  were  afterwards  enlarged,  and 
its  power  being  long  continued  in  the  same  hands, 
continued  to  increase  until  it  became  an  institution 
of  great  importance,  and  exercised  a  controlling  in- 
fluence. As  some  of  the  disturbances  in  the  Society 
originated  in  the  action  of  this  body,  the  nature  of 
its  functions  and  the  extent  of  its  power  demand 
our  attention. 

In  the  year  1756,  a  committee  appointed  by  Phila- 
delphia Yearly  Meeting,  recommended  that  a  fund 
be  raised  for  the  relief  of  suffering  Friends,  and  that 

1  History  of  Friends,  Vol.  III.  Chap.  XII. 


MEETING    FOR    SUFFERINGS.  207 

it  be  placed  under  the  care  of  a  committee  twelve  of 
whom  should  be  nominated  by  the  Yearly  Meeting 
and  four  by  each  of  the  Quarterly  meetings.  The 
recommendation  was  adopted  by  the  meeting,  as  was 
also  the  following  clause  of  the  report,  viz. : — 

"  That  the  services  proposed  to  be  transacted  by 
them  be :  To  hear  and  consider  the  cases  of  any 
Friends  under  suffering,  especially  such  as  suffer  from 
the  Indians  or  other  enemies,  and  to  administer  such 
relief  as  they  may  find  necessary,  or  to  apply  to 
government  or  persons  in  power  on  their  behalf.  To 
correspond  with  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  or  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  London ;  and  to  represent  the 
state  of  the  affairs  of  Friends  here ;  and  in  general, 
to  represent  this  meeting,  and  appear  in  all  cases 
where  the  reputation  of  Truth  and  our  religious  So- 
ciety are  concerned  ;  provided  that  they  do  not  meddle 
ivith  matters  of  faith  or  discipline,  not  already  deter- 
mined in  this  Yearly  Meeting;  and  that  at  least 
twelve  should  concur  on  all  occasions ;  and  that  in 
matters  of  great  importance,  notice  be  given  or  sent 
to  all  the  members  of  the  committee."1 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings, 
or  Representative  Committee,  of  Philadelphia  Yearly 
Meeting.  It  was  at  the  same  time  intrusted,  by  a 
minute  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  with  the  care  and 
application  of  charitable  legacies  and  donations,  and 
required  to  give  advice,  when  needed,  concerning 
the  titles  of  land  or  other  estate  belonging  to  the 
several  meetings. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  of  1757  adopted  the  following 
minute  :  "  The  minutes  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings 

1  MS.  Book  of  Discipline,  1762. 


208  MEETING    FOR    SUFFERINGS. 

having  been  read,"  *  *  *  *  "it  is  unanimously 
agreed  that  the  said  meeting  should  be  continued, 
and  that  the  Friends  nominated  last  year  be  con- 
tinued members  of  that  meeting;  who  in  conjunc- 
tion with  those  chosen  by  the  several  Quarterly  meet- 
ings, shall  be  and  continue  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings 
until  the  respective  Quarterly  meetings  shall  nominate 
and  appoint  others  in  the  rooms  or  places  of  those  chosen 
by  them  last  year"  l 

Buck's  Quarterly  Meeting,  in  the  11th  month,  same 
year,  after  noticing  on  its  records  the  foregoing  min- 
ute, continued  two,  and  appointed  two  other  Friends, 
as  representatives  "for  the  ensuing  year." 

For  some  vears  after  the  institution  of  the  Meet- 
ing  for  Sufferings,  the  Yearly  Meeting  adopted  each 
year  a  minute  for  its  continuance,  "as  at  present  con- 
stituted,  reselling  to  each  Quarterly  meeting  the  right  of 
changing  any  of  the  members  in  the  places  where  they 
were  respectively  nominated."  Or,  as  expressed  in 
another  of  the  minutes,  "  reserving  to  the  Quarterly 
meetings  the  right  of  changing  any  of  their  members 
when  they  think  proper."  2  The  Yearly  Meeting,  in 
1764,  directed,  that  "when  there  is  an  apparent  neg- 
lect of  the  members  nominated  by  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, the  said  Meeting  for  Sufferings  is  authorized  to 
appoint  other  Friends  in  the  room  of  such,  if,  after 
seasonable  admonition,  they  continue  to  neglect  or 
decline  attending;  and  to  acquaint  the  Quarterly 
meetings  respectively,  where  they  observe  any  nomi- 
nated to  represent  them  continue  neglectful  of  giving 
proper  attendance,  in  order  that  such  Quarterly  meet- 
ings may  appoint  other s." 

1  Michener's  Retrospect,  p.  33,  and  Yearly  Extracts,  1757. 

2  Minutes  of  Phila.  Yearly  Meeting,  1757  to  1762  inclusive. 


ELIAS    HICKS   AND    THE    PHILA.    ELDERS.       209 

In  the  year  1768,  the  following  minute  was  adopted 
by  the  Yearly  Meeting:  "The  proceedings  of  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings  for  the  year  past  being  read 
and  approved,  it  is  agreed  to  continue  that  meeting 
agreeable  to  former  minutes,  until  this  meeting  may 
think  it  necessary  to  order  the  contrary." 

Thenceforward  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  was 
considered  a  standing  committee,  responsible  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting  for  its  proceedings  ;  but  the  right  of 
the  Quarterly  meetings  to  change  their  representatives 
in  it  when  they  thought  proper,  was  never  taken  from 
them  nor  relinquished.  Some  of  the  Quarterly  meet- 
ings most  distant  from  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  gen- 
erally appointed  for  their  representatives  Friends 
residing  in  or  near  the  City  for  the  sake  of  conve- 
nience in  attending;  thus  the  power  of  this  body, 
being  concentrated  within  a  narrow  compass,  and 
long  continued  in  the  same  hands,  gave  rise  to  a  feel- 
ing of  independence  and  self-importance  which  ulti- 
mately led  the  ruling  members  of  that  body  to  maintain 
that  they  were  appointed  for  life  and  could  not  be 
removed  by  the  Quarterly  meetings. 


CHAPTEE    XI. 
ELIAS   HICKS   AND   THE   PHILADELPHIA  ELDERS. 

Ox  entering  upon  the  investigation  of  the  transac- 
tions that  led  to  the  Separation  of  Friends  in  Amer- 
ica, it  is  proper  to  state,  that  our  chief  reliance  for 
evidence  of  the  facts  will  be  the  testimony,  oral  and 
documentary,  given  "  in  a  cause  at  issue  in  the  Court 

18*  2G 


210      ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.    ELDERS. 

of  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey."1  In  rela- 
tion to  these  witnesses,  it  was  observed  by  Chief  Jus- 
tice Ewing:  "In  their  opinions,  in  their  inferences, 
in  their  feelings,  we  observe,  as  might  be  expected, 
a  difference  among  the  witnesses,  but  it  is  pleasing 
to  meet  with  no  such  collision  of  facts,  as  to  render 
necessary  the  delicate  and  arduous  duty  of  weighing 
and  comparing  evidence."" 

The  witnesses  on  both  sides  were  men  of  good 
moral  character,  and  doubtless  intended  to  state  the 
truth  under  the  solemn  sanction  of  an  affirmation ; 
but  inasmuch  as  all  men  are  liable  to  be  misinformed 
by  others,  or  misled  by  their  own  excited  feelings,  it 
is  deemed  necessary  to  compare  the  testimony  of  the 
opposite  parties  on  all  important  points. 

The  doctrinal  views  of  Elias  Hicks  having  been 
examined  in  a  preceding  chapter,  and  deduced  from 
his  own  writings  and  printed  discourses,  it  is  not 
deemed  requisite  to  notice  the  statements  of  his  ad- 
versaries on  this  point,  further  than  may  be  needful 
in  the  investigation  of  facts.  It  appears  from  the 
testimony  of  two  of  the  opponents  of  Elias  Hicks, — 
Thos.  Willis,  a  minister,  residing  at  Jericho,  Long 
Island,  and  Samuel  Parsons,  of  Flushing,  clerk  of 
New  York  Yearly  Meeting, —  that  they  had  for  many 
years  been  in  the  practice  of  noting  down  expressions 
of  Elias  Hicks,  which  they  heard  in  his  public  minis- 
try.3 These  isolated  expressions  not  being  written 
immediately  on  their  utterance,  but  from  memory, 
and  separated  from  the  context,  were  liable  to   be 

1  Foster's  Report,  Phila.  1831. 

2  Report  of  the  Trenton  Trial,  Phil.  1834,  p.  11. 

3  Testimony  of  T.  Willis,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  pp.  160,  161, 
and  of  Samuel  Parsons,  Vol.  I.  173,  174,  201. 


ELIAS    HICKS   AND   THE    PHILA.   ELDEES.       211 

misapprehended,  and  were  doubtless  made  nse  of 
greatly  to  the  prejudice  of  the  speaker.  In  addition 
to  this  ungenerous  method  of  treasuring  up,  from 
year  to  year,  scraps  of  doctrinal  matter  deemed  he- 
retical, Thomas  "Willis  and  his  wife  entered  into  a 
correspondence  with  Elias  Hicks  under  a  profession 
of  religious  concern  for  his  welfare.  The  first  letter 
of  Phebe  Willis  was  answered  by  Elias  Hicks  in  the 
year  1818,  the  second  in  1820,  and  he  answered  a 
letter  of  Thomas  Willis  in  1821.  "A  number  of 
weeks'1  after  the  reception  of  Elias  Hicks'  letter, 
Thomas  Willis  proposed  to  him  a  friendly  interview, 
to  which  Elias  agreed,  and  requested  that  his  letter 
should  be  brought  to  him,  as  he  had  no  copy  of  it. 
Thomas  Willis  brought  the  letter  as  requested,  but 
confesses  that  he  took  the  liberty  of  keeping  a  copy 
without  the  consent  of  the  writer.  He  then  said, 
"Shall  we  exchange  letters?"1  Elias  assented: 
giving  up  the  letters  of  Willis,  and  receiving  his 
own,  but  was  not  aware  that  a  copy  had  been  kept 
for  secret  service. 

The  letter  of  Elias  Hicks  to  Thomas  Willis,  thus 
surreptitiously  obtained,  was  circulated  among  the 
orthodox  party  without  his  knowledge,  and  printed 
without  asking  his  consent.  When  he  discovered 
the  course  that  had  been  pursued  towards  him,  he 
very  justly  accused  Thomas  Willis  of  "  treachery." 

The  first  open  manifestation  of  disrespect  to  Elias 
Hicks  on  the  part  of  elders  in  Philadelphia  occurred 
in  the  year  1819.  He  was  then  on  his  return  from 
Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  and  having  attended  a  meet- 
ins:  at  Darbv,  several  Friends  residing  there  went  to 


1  Testimony  of  T.  Willis,  Vol.  I.  p.  111.     Ibid.  p.  119. 


212       ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.   ELDERS. 

the  city,  and  attended  with  him  the  Monthly  Mat- 
ing at  Pine  Street.     He  delivered  some  close  doc- 
trine to  those  who  stood  as  rulers  and  leaders  amons: 
the  people.     "They  were,"  he  said,   "going  round 
and  round  as  it  were,  like  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
not  advancing  forward  ;  and  he  called  on  the  young 
people  in  a  very  affectionate  manner  not  to  rest  in 
the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  but  to  go  forward  and 
advance   the  work  of  reformation."     He   was   very 
earnest  in  his  opposition  to   slavery,  and  had  long 
borne  a  faithful  testimony  against  the  use  of  the  pro- 
duce of  slave-labor.    On  this  occasion  he  was  pointed 
in  his  remarks  on  that   subject,  and  intimated  that 
there  were  some  who  had  not  stood  faithful  in  the 
maintenance  of  this  testimony  which   they  had  at 
some  former  period  supported.     Having  spoken  in 
the  men's  meeting,  he  expressed  a  concern  that  he 
felt  to  visit  the  women  Friends  in  their  meeting  for 
discipline.     Jonathan  Evans,  an  elder  of  that  meet- 
ing, expressed  some  disapprobation  of  it;  but  a  large 
number  of  Friends  expressed  their  full  unity  with 
his  being  left  at  liberty,  and  he   accordingly  went. 
Isaac  Lloyd,  an  elder,  was  appointed  to  go  with  him. 
They  had  not  been  long  in  the  women's  apartment, 
when  a  proposition  was  made  hj  Jonathan  Evans  to 
adjourn  the  meeting,  alleging  that  they  were   not 
qualified,  he  thought,  to  proceed  with  the  business, 
and  said  that  it  had  been  a  very  trying  or  painful 
meeting  to   him.     Several   Friends   expressed   their 
disapprobation   of  adjourning   while   Elias   was    en- 
gaged in  the  women's  meeting,  it  being  considered 
an    unusual,   if  not    an    unprecedented   proceeding. 
There   were,   however,  a  few   who   concurred  with 


ELIAS    HICKS   AND    THE    PHILA.    ELDEKS.      213 

Jonathan  Evans,  and  the  meeting  was  accordingly 
adjourned.1 

This  transaction,  being  considered  an  affront  of- 
fered to  Elias  Hicks,  produced  a  great  excitement, 
and  although  it  may  appear  unimportant  in  itself, 
yet  it  developed  feelings  of  jealousy  and  distrust  that 
continued  to  increase  and  spread  among  Friends. 

In  order  to  account  for  the  extraordinary  course 
pursued  by  Jonathan  Evans,  it  was  remarked  that 
he  had  recently  felt  himself  relieved  from  his  scruples 
in  regard  "  to  the  produce  of  slave-labor,  after  having 
abstained  from  it  for  many  years,  and  that  he  felt 
aggrieved  by  the  severe  rebuke  administered  by  Elias 
Hicks."  It  is,  however,  always  unsafe,  and  often  un- 
just, to  resort  to  conjecture  for  the  motives  of  human 
conduct.  The  course  pursued  by  Jonathan  Evans 
in  relation  to  slave-grown  produce  was  similar  to  that 
of  John  Comly,  as  recorded  in  his  Journal.  He  felt 
it  his  duty  for  many  years  to  abstain  from  the  use  of 
West  India  produce  cultivated  by  slave-labor,  but 
afterwards  felt  relieved  from  his  scruples  in  this  re- 
spect, and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  burden  had 
been  laid  upon  him  for  the  discipline  of  his  own 
mind,  and  that  it  had  been  salutary.2  Being  con- 
scious of  the  purity  of  his  own  motives,  he  was  will- 
ing that  others  should  exercise  their  Christian  free- 
dom, and  was  therefore  not  wounded  by  the  stric- 
tures of  Elias  Hicks,  who,  as  early  as  the  year  1811, 
had  published  his  "  Observations  on  Slavery,"  main- 
taining  that  it  was   principally  supported  "  by  the 

1  Testimony  of  Halliday  Jackson  (an  eye-witness).     Foster's 
Report,  Vol.  II.  pp.  39,  40. 

2  J.  C's  Journal,  p.  39. 

2G2 


214      ELIAS    HICKS   AND   THE   PHILA.   ELDEKS. 

purchasers  and  consumers  of  the  produce  of  the  slaves' 
labor." 

The  next  demonstration  of  hostility  to  Elias  Hicks 
by  the  elders  in  Philadelphia  was  in  the  9th  month, 
1822. 

It  appears  Irom  the  testimony  of  Abraham  Lower, 
corroborated  by  that  of  Joseph  Whitall,  an  Orthodox 
minister,  that  at  an  unofficial  meeting  of  a  part  of  the 
members  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  after  that  meet- 
ing had  adjourned,  measures  were  devised  to  obstruct 
the  religious  labors  of  Elias  Hicks,  on  account  of 
alleged  false  doctrines  that  he  had  declared  three 
months  before  in  his  oivn  Yearly  Meeting  of  New  York. 

Abraham  Lower,  a  minister  of  the  Society,  and  a 
member  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  being  ques- 
tioned, teptified  as  follows:  "I  was  about  to  enter 
the  meeting-house  at  the  time  appointed  for  our  con- 
vening, when  Samuel  Bettle,  who  stood  at  the  door, 
or  just  outside,  desired  me,  in  a  low  tone  of  voice  so 
that  I  could  understand  it,  to  '  stop  at  the  rise  of 
the  meeting.'  I  left  him  there  and  passed  in  as 
usual.  At  the  close  of  that  meeting,  a  number, 
I  suppose  ten  or  twelve  of  us,  were  convened; — after 
sitting  a  little  while  quiet,  Jonathan  Evans  rose,  as 
I  understood,  and  stated  the  object  of  the  meeting 
pretty  much  in  these  words,  to  the  best  of  my  recol- 
lection :  '  It  is  understood  that  Elias  Hicks  is  coming 
on  here,  on  his  way  to  Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting. 
Friends  know  that  he  preaches  doctrines  contrary  to 
the  doctrines  of  our  Society,  that  he  has  given  un- 
easiness to  his  friends  at  home,  and  they  can't  stop 
him;  and  unless  we  can  stop  him  here,  he  must  go 
on.'  Joseph  Whitall  remarked,  in  corroboration  of 
that  assertion  of  the  unity  of  his  friends  at  home, — 


ELIAS    HICKS   AND   THE    PHILA.   ELDERS.       215 

of  their  difficulty  of  stopping  him,  I  should  say, — 
that  his  own  Monthly  meeting  and  Quarterly  meet- 
ing, and  two  thirds  of  the  Yearly  meeting  were  with 
him."1 

Joseph  "Whitall  testifies :  "  There  were  a  few  Friends, 
Ministers  and  Elders,  who  did  stop  together  after  the 
rise  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  I  think  in  Ninth 
month  of  that  year,  and  had  the  subject  of  Elias's 
unsoundness  discussed  a  little  amongst  them.  A 
very  short  statement  was  given,  both  by  Richard 
Jordan  and  myself,  of  what  we  knew  of  our  own 
knowledge  —  what  we  had  heard  him  declare."2 

On  this  information,  two  or  three  elders  were 
named  to  wait  on  Elias  Hicks,  when  he  should  arrive 
in  the  city,  although  it  was  well  known  that  he  was 
travelling  with  the  approbation  of  his  Monthly  and 
Quarterly  meetings,  and  bearing  their  credentials 
with  him. 

This  irregular  and  unwarrantable  proceeding  shows, 
on  the  part  of  those  ministers  and  elders  who  were 
engaged  in  it,  a  usurpation  of  power  then  without 
precedent  in  the  Society.  The  Book  of  Discipline 
of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  contained  the  follow- 
ing rule:  "If  any  in  the  course  of  their  ministry 
shall  misapply,  or  draw  unsound  inferences,  or  wrong 
conclusions  from  the  text,  or  shall  misbehave  them- 
selves in  point  of  conduct  or  conversation,  let  them 
be  admonished  in  love  and  tenderness  by  the  elders 
or  overseers  where  they  line." 

It  was  not  stated  that  Elias  Hicks  had  preached 
unsound  doctrines  in  Philadelphia,  —  the  alleged 
heresies  had  been  uttered  in  the  time  of  the  Yearly 


1  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  pp.  355,  356.  2  Ibid.  I.  p.  247. 


216      ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.   ELDERS. 

Meeting  in  New  York;  his  fellow-members  there  had 
not  objected,  and  he  received  from  his  Monthly  and 
Quarterly  meetings,  some  months  after,  a  clear  certifi- 
cate to  travel  as  a  minister. 

The  attempt  proved  abortive: — he  pursued  his 
way  to  Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting,  where  his  labors 
in  gospel  ministry  both  in  meetings  for  worship  and 
those  for  discipline  were  deemed  edifying,  and  ac- 
knowledged to  be  acceptable  to  Friends.1  After 
leaving  Baltimore  he  attended  the  Southern  Quar- 
terly Meeting  held  at  Little  Creek,  Delaware,  and 
thence  he  proceeded  to  Philadelphia. 

There  were  in  attendance  at  the  Southern  Quar- 
terly Meeting  Ezra  Comfort  and  Isaiah  Bell,  mem- 
bers of  another  Quarter,  who  took  exceptions  to 
some  of  the  sentiments  expressed  by  Elias  Hicks  at 
a  public  meeting  for  worship.  Instead  of  making 
known  their  objections  to  him,  in  a  friendly  manner, 
agreeably  to  gospel  order,  they  went  to  some  of  the 
elders  of  Philadelphia  and  reported  what  they  deemed 
his  unsound  doctrines.  In  this  the}'  committed  two 
errors :  first,  in  not  asking  a  private  interview  with 
him ;  secondly,  in  reporting  the  case  to  those  who  had 
no  authority  to  notice  it,  for  according  to  discipline 
and  usage,  the  elders  of  the  Southern  Quarterly 
Meeting  in  attendance,  if  they  were  dissatisfied  with 
his  doctrines,  were  the  only  ones  authorized  to  treat 
with  him  in  that  case. 

It  appears,  however,  that  some  of  the  elders  in 
Philadelphia,  being  already  prejudiced  against  Elias 
Hicks,  and  not  at  all  reluctant  to  exercise  their 
power,  were  determined  to  have  an  interview  with 

1  Testimony  of  Halliday  Jackson. 


ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.   ELDERS.       21" 

him  in  relation  to  the  charges  made  by  Comfort  and 
Bell,  as  well  as  the  allegations  of  Joseph  "Whitall 
respecting  his  discourses  in  New  York.1 

Soon  after  his  arrival  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
he  was  waited  on  by  a  committee  of  elders,  supposed 
to  be  those  who  were  designated  after  the  close  of 
the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  in  the  9th  month  pre- 
vious. As  the  charges  they  brought  related  to  sen- 
timents alleged  to  have  been  uttered  without  the 
limits  of  Philadelphia  Quarterly  Meeting,  he  denied 
their  authority  to  question  him,  but  on  their  assuring 
him  they  came  in  love  as  brethren,  he  was  willing  to 
answer  them,  and  they  went  away  apparently  satis- 
fied.2 Whatever  report  they  may  have  made  of  the 
interview,  it  does  not  appear  to  have  satisfied  the 
other  elders,  who  persisted  in  their  determination  to 
interrogate  him  further.  For  this  purpose,  the  male 
elders  from  the  five  Monthly  Meetings  in  Philadel- 
phia were  summoned  to  meet  in  an  official  capacity, 
and  ten  of  them  demanded  an  interview.  Elias 
Hicks  denied  their  authority  to  question  him  in  re- 
gard to  matters  that  occurred  beyond  their  jurisdic- 
tion, but  offered  to  produce  certificates  expressive  of 
the  unity  and  concurrence  of  his  Monthly  and  Quar- 
terly Meetings  with  him  in  his  present  service.  In 
compliance,  however,  with  the  advice  of  some  of  his 
friends,  he  agreed  to  meet  the  elders  in  Green  Street 
Meeting-house.  As  his  accusers  intended  to  bring 
witnesses  to  endeavor  to  sustain  their  charges,  he 
deemed  it  expedient  and  proper  to  have  some  of  his 
friends  with  him,  and  was  accordingly  accompanied 


1  Test,  of  J.  Whitall,  Foster,  I.  247. 

1  Testimony  of  Abraham  Lower,  Foster's  Report,  I.  416. 

IV  — 19 


218      ELIAS   HICKS   AND   THE   PHILA.    ELDEKS. 

by  John  Comly,  Eobert  Moore,  John  Moore,  John 
Hunt,  and  others,  some  of  whom  had  been  at  the 
Southern    Quarterly   Meeting,  and   could  give   evi- 
dence in  the  case.1     The  elders  denied  him  the  priv- 
ilege of  bringing  any  of  his  friends  with  him ;  not 
even  those  ministers  and  elders  then  in  the  city  from 
the  country  meeting,  who  had  full  as  much  right  as 
themselves  to  be  present.     One  of  the  ten  elders  sug- 
gested that  they  desired  a  private  opportunity  with 
Elias  Hicks,  and  added,  that  unless  it  was  private 
they  would  have  none.     Abraham  Lower,  a  minister 
of  Green   Street  Meeting,  thought  their  proposition 
unreasonable,  and  remarked,  that  as  Elias  Hicks  was 
then  performing  family  visits   to   the    members  of 
Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting,  some  of  them,  who 
were  present,  thought  themselves  concerned  in  the 
case;  but  he  had  no  doubt  that  all  of  them,  except  the 
ministers  and  elders,  would  withdraw  if  desired.2    One 
of  the  accusing  elders  replied,  that  unless  all  withdrew 
but  Elias  and  his  companion,  they  would  withdraw. 
Elias  objected  to  the  proposition,  called  upon  them 
to  bring  forward  their  charges,  said  he  was  ready  to 
hear  them,  and  justly  complained  that  he  had  been 
cruelly  treated.     One  of  his  accusers  stated  that  they 
should  take  the  charges  for  granted ;  and  Elias,  having 
understood  the  nature  of  them  through  some  other 
channel,  declared  they  were  false.     The  self-consti- 
tuted committee  of  elders  then  withdrew,  and  soon 
after,  a  deputation  of  them  waited  on  two  of  the 
elders  of  Green  Street  Meeting  in  order  to  dissuade 
them  from  assisting  Elias  Hicks  in  the  prosecution 

1  Cockburn'c  Review,  p.  66. 

2  Testimony  of  Abraham  Lower,  Foster's  Report,  I.  359,  416. 


ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.   ELDERS.       219 

of  his  visit;  but  they  had  the  magnanimity  to  dis- 
courage such  disorderly  interference.  He  accom- 
plished his  visit  to  nearly  all  the  families  of  that 
meeting,  and  then  attended  the  Monthly  Meeting, 
where  an  indorsement  of  approbation  and  unity  with 
his  religious  labors  was  placed  on  his  certificate, 
which  was  done  without  a  dissenting  voice.1 

Eli  as  Hicks,  though  firm  in  his  resolutions  and 
dignified  in  his  deportment,  was  remarkable  for  the 
tenderness  of  his  feelings,  and  the  humility  of  his 
character.  One  of  his  accusers,  Joseph  Whitall,  on 
being  cross-examined,  admitted  that  Elias  in  one  of 
their  interviews  wept  on  account  of  the  difference  in 
their  views,  and  the  sad  consequences  that  might  en- 
sue.2 And  Halliday  Jackson,  in  his  testimony,  states 
that  being  at  Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting  in  the  year 
1822,  and  having  heard  of  the  account  that  had  been 
circulated  by  Joseph  "Whitall,  he  took  an  early  op- 
portunity to  obtain  an  interview  with  Elias  Hicks, 
which  was  readily  granted.  On  being  informed  of 
those  charges,  Elias  said  he  was  surprised  that  his 
friends  in  Philadelphia  should  be  carried  away  with 
such  tales.  "  He  gave  me,"  says  the  witness,  "  such 
explanations  of  the  conversation  that  took  place  be- 
tween him  and  Joseph  "Whitall,  as  fully  satisfied  my 
mind  on  the  subject,  and  amounted  to  a  denial  of  the 
charges  and  the  manner  in  which  this  conversation 
had  been  represented."  *  *  *  *  "We  had  a  good 
deal  of  friendly  conversation  together;  finding  the 
openness  and  candor  of  the  man,  I  was  entirely  sat- 
isfied as  to  any  impressions  which  the  spreading  o^ 


1  Testimony  of  Abraham  Lower,  Foster's  Report,  I.  360. 
9  Foster's  Report,  I.  246. 


220      ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.   ELDERS. 

♦ 

this  report  had  had  upon  my  mind.  I  made  some 
apologies  to  him  for  the  freedom  I  had  used  with 
him,  being  a  young  man  to  what  he  was ;  but  he  ex- 
pressed much  satisfaction  that  I  had  taken  that  lib- 
erty; and  his  esteem,  I  believe,  for  me,  was  rather 
increased  by  it."1 

The  following  correspondence  and  certificates  will 
explain  the  nature  of  the  charges  then  made  against 
Elias  Hicks,  and  the  refutation  of  them  by  himself 
and  his  friends. 

LETTER   FROM   THE   TEN   ELDERS   TO   ELIAS    HICKS. 

"  To  Elias  Hicks. 

"Friends  in  Philadelphia  having  for  a  consider- 
able time  past  heard  of  thy  holding  and  promulgating 
doctrines  different  from,  and  repugnant  to  those  held 
by  our  religious  Society,  it  was  cause  of  uneasiness  and 
deep  concern  to  them,  as  their  sincere  regard  and  en- 
gagement for  the  promotion  of  the  cause  of  truth  made 
it  very  desirable  that  all  the  members  of  our  religious 
society  should  move  in  true  harmony  under  the  lead- 
ing and  direction  of  our  Blessed  Redeemer:  upon 
being  informed  of  thy  sentiments  expressed  by  Joseph 
Whitall :  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of  God, 
until  after  the  baptism  of  John,  and  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  that  he  was  no  more  than  a  man; 
that  the  same  power  that  made  Christ  a  Christian 
must  make  us  Christians;  and  that  the  same  power 
that  saved  him  must  save  us;  many  Friends  were 
affected  therewith,  and  some  time  afterwards,  several 
Friends  being  together  in  the  city  on  subjects  relating 
to  our  religious  society,  they  received  an  account  from 

1  Foster's  Report,  II.  40,  41. 


ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.  ELDEKS.       221 

Ezra  Comfort,  of  some  of  thy  expressions  in  the  pub- 
lic general  meeting  immediately  succeeding  the  South- 
ern Quarterly  Meeting  lately  held  in  the  State  of  Del- 
aware, which  was  also  confirmed  by  his  companion, 
Isaiah  Bell:  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  first  man  that 
introduced  the  gospel  dispensation ;  the  Jews  being 
under  the  outward  and  ceremonial  law  or  dispensation, 
it  was  necessary  that  there  should  be  some  outward 
miracle,  as  the  healing  of  the  outward  infirmities  of 
the  flesh,  and  raising  the  outward  dead  bodies,  in 
order  to  introduce  the  gospel  dispensation  ;  he  had  no 
more  power  given  him  than  man,  for  he  was  no  more 
than  man ;  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  healing  of 
the  soul,  for  that  belongs  to  God  only ;  Elisha  had 
the  same  power  to  raise  the  dead ;  that  man  being 
obedient  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  him  could  arrive  at 
as  great  or  greater  degree  of  righteousness  than  Jesus 
Christ ;  that  Jesus  Christ  thought  it  not  robbery  to 
be  equal  with  God,  neither  do  I  think  it  robbery  for 
man  to  be  equal  with  God  ;  then  endeavoured  to  show 
that  by  attending  to  that  stone  cut  out  of  the  moun- 
tain without  hands,  or  the  seed  in  man,  it  would  make 
man  equal  with  God,  saying,  for  that  stone  in  man 
was  the  entire  God.  On  hearing  which,  it  appeared 
to  Friends  a  subject  of  such  great  importance  and  of 
such  deep  interest  to  the  welfare  of  our  religious 
society,  as  to  require  an  extension  of  care,  in  order  that 
if  any  incorrect  statement  had  been  made  it  should 
as  soon  as  possible  be  rectified,  or  if  true,  thou  might 
be  possessed  of  the  painful  concerns  of  Friends,  and 
their  sense  and  judgment  thereon.  Two  of  the  elders 
accordingly  waited  on  thee  on  the  evening  of  the  day 
of  thy  arriving  in  the  city,  and  although  thou  denied 
the  statement,  yet  thy  declining  to  meet  these  two 

19*  IV  — 2  H 


222       ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.  ELDERS. 

elders  in  company  with  those  who  made  it,  left  the 
minds  of  Friends  withont  relief:  one  of  the  elders 
who  had  called  on  thee  repeated  his  visit  on  the  next 
day  but  one,  and  again  requested  thee  to  see  the  two 
elders  and  the  Friends  who  made  the  above  state- 
ments, which  thou  again  declined.  The  elders  from 
the  different  monthly  meetings  in  the  city  were  then 
convened,  and  requested  a  private  opportunity  with 
thee,  which  thou  also  refused,  yet  the  next  day  con- 
sented to  meet  them  at  a  time  and  place  of  thy  own 
fixing ;  but  when  assembled,  a  mixed  company  being 
collected,  the  elders  could  not  in  this  manner  enter 
into  business  which  they  considered  of  a  nature  not 
to  be  investigated  in  any  other  way  than  in  a  select 
private  opportunity ;  they  therefore  considered  that 
meeting  a  clear  indication  of  thy  continuing  to  decline 
to  meet  the  elders,  as  by  them  proposed.  Under  these 
circumstances  it  appearing  that  thou  art  not  willing 
to  hear  and  disprove  the  charges  brought  against  thee, 
we  feel  it  a  duty  to  declare  that  we  cannot  have  reli- 
gious unity  with  thy  conduct,  nor  with  the  doctrines 
thou  art  charged  with  promulgating. 

"Signed,  12th  month  19th,  1822. 

Caleb  Pierce, 
Leonard  Snowden, 
Joseph  Scattergood, 
Saml.  P.  Griffeths, 
T.  Stewardson, 
Edward  Randolph, 
Israel  Maule, 
Ellis  Yarnell, 
Richard  Humphries, 
Thomas  Wistar." 


ELIAS   HICKS   AND   THE   PHILA.  ELDERS.       223 
ANSWER    OF   ELIAS   HICKS. 

"To  Caleb  Pierce,  and  other  Friends. 

"Having  been  charged  by  you  of  unsoundness 
of  principle  and  doctrine,  founded  on  reports  spread 
among  the  people  in  an  unfriendly  manner,  and  con- 
trary to  the  order  of  our  discipline,  by  Joseph  Whitall, 
as  stated  in  the  letter  from  you,  dated  the  19th  inst. ; 
and  as  these  charges  are  not  literally  true,  being 
founded  on  his  own  forced  and  improper  construction 
of  my  words,  I  deny  them  ;  and  as  I  do  not  consider 
myself  amenable  to  him,  nor  to  any  other  for  crimes 
laid  to  my  charge  as  being  committed  in  the  course 
of  the  sittings  of  our  last  Yearly  Meeting,  as  not  any 
of  my  fellow-members  of  that  meeting  discovered  or 
noticed  any  such  things,  which  I  presume  to  be  the 
case,  as  not  an  individual  has  mentioned  any  such 
things  to  me,  but  contrary  thereto  many  of  our  most 
valuable  Friends  (who  had  heard  some  of  those  foul 
reports  first  promulgated  by  an  individual  of  our  city) 
acknowledged  the  great  satisfaction  they  had  with  my 
services  and  exercise  in  the  course  of  that  meeting, 
and  were  fully  convinced  that  all  those  reports  were 
false,  and  this  view  is  fully  confirmed  by  a  certificate 
granted  me  by  the  Monthly  and  Quarterly  meetings 
of  which  I  am  a  member,  in  which  they  express  their 
full  unity  with  me,  and  winch  meetings  were  held  a 
considerable  time  after  our  Yearly  Meeting,  in  the 
course  of  which  Joseph  Whitall  has  presumed  to 
charge  me  with  unsoundness  of  doctrine  contrary  to 
the  sense  of  the  Yearly,  Quarterly  and  Monthly  meet- 
ings, of  which  I  am  a  member,  and  to  whom  only  I 
hold  myself  amenable  for  all  conduct  transacted  within 
their  limits.     The  other  charges  against  me  made  by 


224       ELIAS    HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.  ELDERS. 

Ezra  Comfort,  as  expressed  in  your  letter,  are  in  the 
general  incorrect,  as  is  proved  by  the  annexed  certifi- 
cate ;  and  moreover,  as  Ezra  Comfort  has  departed 
from  gospel  order,  in  not  mentioning  his  uneasiness 
to  me,  when  present  with  me,  and  when  I  could  have 
appealed  to  Friends  of  that  meeting  to  have  justified 
me,  therefore  I  consider  Ezra  Comfort  to  have  acted 
disorderly  and  contrary  to  discipline,  and  these  are 
the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  refuse  a  compli- 
ance with  your  requisitions,  as  considering  them 
arbitrary  and  contrary  to  the  established  order  of  our 
Society.  Elias  Hicks."1 

"Philadelphia,  12th  month  21st,  1822. 

"We,  the  undersigned,  being  occasionally  in  the 
city  of  Philadelphia,  where  a  letter  was  produced  and 
handed  to  us,  signed  by  ten  of  the  citizens,  elders  of 
the  Society  of  Friends,  and  directed  to  Elias  Hicks, 
after  perusing  and  deliberately  considering  the  charges 
made  therein  against  him,  for  holding  and  propagating 
doctrines  inconsistent  with  our  religious  testimonies, 
and  more  especially  those  said  by  Ezra  Comfort  and 
Isaiah  Bell  to  be  held  forth  at  a  meeting  immediately 
succeeding  the  late  Southern  Quarterly  Meeting,  and 
we  being  members  of  the  Southern  Quarter,  and  present 
at  the  said  meeting,  are  free  to  state  for  the  satisfaction 
of  the  first-mentioned  Friends  and  all  others  whom  it 
may  concern,  that  we  apprehend  the  charges  exhibited 
by  the  two  Friends  named  are  without  substantial 
foundation,  and  in  order  to  give  a  clear  view  we  think 
it  best  and  proper  here  to  transcribe  the  said  charges 
exhibited,  and  our  understanding  of  them  severally, 

1  Foster's  Report,  II.  492.   Exhibit  81,  produced  by  Thos.  Evans. 


ELIAS    HICKS   AND   THE    PHILA.  ELDERS.  225 

viz. :  '  That  Jesus  Christ  was  the  first  man  that  intro- 
duced the  gospel  dispensation,  the  Jews  being  under 
an  outward  ceremonial  law  or  dispensation,  it  was 
necessary  there  should  be  some  outward  miracles,  as 
healing  the  outward  infirmities  of  the  flesh,  and  rais- 
ing the  outward  dead  bodies,  in  order  to  introduce  the 
gospel  dispensation;'  this  is  substantially  correct:  — 
'  That  he  had  no  more  power  given  him  than  man, 
for  he  was  no  more  than  man  ; '  this  sentence  is  incor- 
rect, as  also  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  healing 
the  soul,  for  that  belonged  to  God  only,'  is  likewise 
incorrect ;  —  and  the  next  sentence,  '  That  Elisha  had 
the  same  power  to  raise  the  dead,'  should  be  trans- 
posed thus  to  give  his  expression  :  '  by  the  same  power 
it  was  that  Elisha  raised  the  dead.'  '  That  man  by 
being  obedient  to  the  spirit  of  God  in  him,  could 
arrive  at  as  great  or  greater  degrees  of  righteousness 
than  Jesus  Christ,'  this  is  incorrect.  'That  Jesus 
Christ  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,' 
with  annexing  the  other  part  of  the  paragraph  men- 
tioned by  the  holy  apostle,  would  be  correct.  'Neither 
do  I  think  it  robbery  for  man  to  be  equal  with  God,' 
is  incorrect.  '  Then  endeavouring  to  show  that  by 
attending  to  that  stone  that  was  cut  out  of  the  moun- 
tain without  hands,  or  the  seed  in  man,  it  would 
make  hkn  equal  with  God,'  is  incorrect.  The  sen- 
tence, 'for  that  stone  in  man  was  the  entire  God,' 
should  stand  thus :  '  That  this  stone,  or  seed  in  man 
had  all  the  attributes  of  the  Divine  nature  that  was  in 
Christ  and  God.' 

"This  statement  and  few  necessary  remarks  we 
make  without  comment,  save  only,  that  we  were  then 
of  opinion,  and  still  are,  that  the  sentiments  and  doc- 
trines held  forth  by  our  said  Friend  Elias  Hicks  were 

2H2 


226       ELIAS   HICKS    AND    THE    PHILA.  ELDERS. 

agreeable  to  the  opinions  and  doctrines  held  forth  by 
George  Fox,  and  our  worthy  predecessors  of  his  time. 

Robert  Moore, 
Joseph  Turner, 
Joseph  G.  Rowland."1 

This  certificate  was  subsequently  corroborated  by 
another,  signed  by  twenty-two  members  of  the  South- 
ern Quarterly  Meeting. 

Nine  of  the  elders  wrote  another  letter  to  Elias 
Hicks,  dated  Phila.,  1st  month  4th,  1823,  expressing 
their  continued  disapprobation  of  his  doctrines,  and 
Jonathan  Evans  appended  a  few  lines  expressing  his 
concurrence  with  "their  concern  and  care."2 

The  conduct  of  Ezra  Comfort  and  Isaiah  Bell,  in 
relation  to  the  charges  against  Elias  Hicks,  being 
brought  before  the  Monthly  Meeting  to  which  they 
belonged,  they  were  dealt  with  as  the  discipline  re- 
quires, and  being  unwilling  to  acknowledge  their 
error,  were  disowned.  They  appealed  to  Abington 
Quarterly  Meeting,  and  the  judgment  of  the  Monthly 
Meeting  was  confirmed.  They  then  appealed  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  were  reinstated.3 

NOTE. 

There  is  a  remarkable  analogy  between  the  course  pursued  by 
the  elders  in  Philadelphia  towards  Elias  Hicks,  and  that  which 
was  subsequently  pursued  by  orthodox  ministers  and  elders  in 
New  England  towards  Joseph  John  Gurney.  When  this  distin- 
guished English  Friend  visited  the  United  States  in  the  year  1837, 
he  brought  with  him  full  credentials  from  the  Monthly  and  Quar- 

1  Foster's  Report,  II.  492.  Exhibit  No.  82,  produced  by  T. 
Evans. 

2  Cockburn's  Review,  76  to  79.  8  Foster's  Rep.,  I.  367. 


THE    MEETING    FOR    SUFFERINGS.  227 

terly  meetings  to  which  he  belonged,  and  a  clear  certificate  from 
the  London  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders,  expressing 
their  unity  with  him  and  his  concern,  and  stating  that  he  was  a 
minister  in  unity  and  well  approved  amongst  them.  While  en- 
gaged in  his  religious  mission  in  New  England,  in  the  year  1838, 
John  Wilbur,  a  minister  of  the  Society,  charged  him  with  having 
published  unsound  doctrines  in  England,  and  not  being  satisfied 
with  his  answer,  proceeded  both  by  oral  and  written  communica- 
tions to  caution  Friends  against  receiving  or  imbibing  his  senti- 
ments. 

The  coursopursued  by  John  Wilbur  being  considered  disorderly, 
he  was  dealt  with  as  an  offender  against  the  discipline,  and  dis- 
owned. A  large  majority  of  New  England  Yearly  Meeting  con- 
curred in  this  measure,  but  a  schism  ensued,  and  the  smaller 
body,  adhering  to  John  Wilbur,  established  a  separate  Yearly 
Meeting,  which  was  subsequently  associated  in  religious  fellow- 
ship with  other  bodies  of  the  same  class  that  became  detached 
from  some  of  the  Orthodox  Yearly  meetings  to  which  the  schism 
extended. 


CHAPTER   XII. 


PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE   MEETING    FOR    SUFFERINGS, 

PHILADELPHIA. 

One  of  the  subjects  introduced  into  the  Meeting 
for  Sufferings  of  Philadelphia  was  a  doctrinal  con- 
troversy, over  the  signatures  of  Paul  and  Amicus, 
printed  in  a  periodical  paper  at  Wilmington,  Dela- 
ware. The  doctrines  of  Friends  being  attacked  by 
Paul,  were  defended  by  Amicus  in  a  very  able  man- 
ner, as  was  generally  thought ;  and  at  the  close  of  the 
controversy,  the  essays  on  both  sides  were  reprinted 
in  a  book,  which  was  patronized  by  a  large  number 
of  Friends. 

In  the  summer  or  autumn  of  the  year  1822,  several 


228  PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE 

numbers  of  the  periodical,  containing  this  controversy, 
were  produced  in  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  and 
some  of  the  members  of  that  meeting  expressed  an 
apprehension  that  the  doctrines  of  Friends  were  not 
correctly  stated  by  Amicus.1  Abraham  Lower  in- 
formed the  Friend,  who  wrote  over  the  signature  of 
Amicus,  that  objections  had  been  made  to  his  essays, 
and  he  promptly  determined  to  relieve  the  members 
of  the  Society  from  any  anxiety  on  that  head,  by  as- 
suming the  responsibility  himself  individually,  and 
exonerating  the  Society.  A  notice  to  this  effect  was 
inserted  in  one  of  the  numbers  of  the  paper  in  which 
the  controversy  was  published.  This  notice  was  pre- 
sented to  Jonathan  Evans,  clerk  of  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings,  who  read  it  to  the  meeting.2 

It  would  seem  that  this  declaration  oughi  to  have 
satisfied  reasonable  men,  but  some  of  the  members  of 
the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  desired  the  appointment 
of  a  committee  to  bring  forward  a  suitable  minute  to 
be  inserted  in  the  volume  of  essays  about  to  be  pub- 
lished. 

A  committee  was  accordingly  appointed,  who  pro- 
duced a  minute  disavowing  any  connection  with  the 
writing  or  publication  of  those  essays.  They  also 
brought  forward  in  the  First  month,  1823,  a  paper 
purporting  to  be  "Extracts  from  the  Writings  of 
Primitive  Friends  concerning  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."3  The  minute  thus  pro- 
duced was  agreed  to  by  the  meeting,  but  the  pub- 
lisher of  the  book  refused  to  insert  it.     The  extracts, 

1  Testimony  of  Joseph  Whitall.     Foster's  Rep.  I.  216. 

2  Test,  of  A.  Lower,  Foster,  I.  368. 

3  Foster's  Report,  II.  414,  476,  and  Testimony  of  W.  Evans,  Vol. 
II.  p.  329. 


MEETING    FOR    SUFFERINGS,  PHILADELPHIA.    229 

when  read  in  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  were  opposed 
by  some  of  the  members,  under  an  apprehension  that 
they  might  be  used  to  abridge  the  right  of  private 
judgment.1  They  were,  moreover,  in  a  very  objec- 
tionable form ;  no  references  being  given  to  show 
whence  they  were  taken,  and  no  quotation-marks 
affixed,  except  to  the  texts  of  Scripture  included.  It 
has  since  been  stated  that  the  extracts  were  garbled, 
some  of  them  being  parts  of  sentences,  with  no  clew  to 
guide  the  reader  in  searching  for  the  context.  Not- 
withstanding the  objections  urged  against  the  docu- 
ment, it  was  passed,  and  a  large  edition  ordered  to  be 
printed.  It  was  printed  but  not  distributed,  as  had 
been  expected. 

When  the  Yearly  Meeting  came  on,  in  the  Spring 
of  1823,  the  proceedings  of  the  Meeting  for  Suffer- 
ings were  read  as  usual ;  but  what  was  the  surprise 
of  the  members  to  find  the  whole  of  those  extracts 
copied  into  the  minutes  and  read  in  the  Yearly 
Meeting. 

The  design  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Meeting  for  Suf- 
ferings appeared  to  be,  to  obtain  for  them  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Yearly  Meeting  without  further  examina- 
tion, and  thus  have  them  established  as  a  standard  of 
doctrines. 

The  reading  of  them  produced  a  great  excitement 
in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  a  substantial  Friend  from 
the  country  exclaimed,  "Who  hath  required  this  at 
your  hands?"2  Very  great  dissatisfaction  was  ex- 
pressed by  a  large  number  of  Friends,  who  desired 
that  the  extracts  should  be  expunged,  but  the  clerk 
objected  that  it  would  deface  the  minutes,  and  it  was 

1  Test,  of  A.  Lower.     Foster,  I.  368,  369,  463. 

2  Testimony  of  Halliday  Jackson,  Foster,  II.  102. 
20 


230  PROCEEDINGS    OF    T£E 

finally  agreed  that  the  pamphlet  should  not  be 
published.1 

The  document  thus  suppressed  by  order  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  was  popularly  called  " the  creed" 

It  had,  for  many  years,  been  the  practice  of  some 
of  the  Quarterly  meetings  most  distant  from  the  city 
of  Philadelphia,  to  appoint  for  their  representatives 
in  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  persons  living  in  or 
near  the  city,  for  the  sake  of  convenience  in  attend- 
ing its  sittings.  The  Southern  Quarterly  Meeting, 
situated  in  Delaware  and  the  Eastern  shore  of  Mary- 
land, had  been  for  some  years  represented  by  Abra- 
ham Lower,  Caleb  Pierce,  Isaac  Lloyd,  and  Joseph 
Turner.  In  the  5th  month,  1826,  Abraham  Lower 
attended  that  Quarterly  Meeting  and  proposed  that, 
as  he  had  been  one  of  their  representatives  for  ten 
or  twelve  years,  they  should  make  a  new  nomination. 
Joseph  Turner  also  requested  to  be  released.  The 
Quarterly  Meeting  agreed  to  the  proposal,  concluded 
to  release  all  their  representatives,  and  appointed  a 
committee  to  bring  forward  the  names  of  suitable 
persons  to  represent  them  in  the  Meeting  for  Suffer- 
ings. They  nominated  for  that  service  Abraham 
Lower,  Dr.  Joseph  Parrish,  Dr.  John  Wilson  Moore 
of  Philadelphia,  and  Halliday  Jackson  of  Darby. 
The  last  three  were  known  to  be  thoroughly  opposed 
to  the  proceedings  of  the  elders  in  Philadelphia,  and 
when  they  attended  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  that 
body  refused  to  acknowledge  their  appointment. 
Being  denied  the  right  to  sit  in  the  meeting,  they 
were  under  the  necessity  of  withdrawing. 

This  action  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  was  un- 

1  Testimony  of  Abraham  Lower,  Foster,  I.  368. 


MEETING    FOR   SUFFERINGS,  PHILADELPHIA.    231 

prececlented  in  the  Society,  and  was  regarded  by 
many  as  a  confirmation  of  the  suspicion  they  had  for 
some  years  entertained,  that  there  was  in  that  meet- 
ing a  strong  party  determined  to  govern  without 
regard  to  the  wishes  of  their  constituents.1 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  features  of  this  case 
was,  that  Caleb  Pierce  and  Isaac  Lloyd,  two  of  the 
representatives  formerly  appointed  by  the  Southern 
Quarter,  presented  to  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  a  re- 
monstrance against  their  being  released  from  that 
station.2  A  committee  was  thereupon  appointed  to 
attend  the  Southern  Quarterly  Meeting  and  confer 
with  it  in  relation  to  the  appointment  of  its  repre- 
sentatives. At  a  subsequent  meeting,  the  committee 
reported  attention  to  the  service,  and  stated  that 
"the  Quarterly  Meeting  declined  appointing  a  com- 
mittee or  in  any  way  explaining  their  views  on  the 
subject."3 

The  positions  taken  by  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings 
and  its  committee,  for  rejecting  the  three  represen- 
tatives recently  appointed,  were  as  follows:  — 

1st.  That  the  entire  revision  of  its  representation 
by  a  Quarterly  meeting  was  unprecedented. 

2d.  That  no  vacancy  had  occurred ;  for  the  only 
cases  that  constitute  a  vacancy,  according  to  the 
discipline,  are  death,  resignation,  or  neglect  of  at- 
tendance. 

3d.  That  no  change  in  the  rule  of  the  Society 
could  be  made,  but  by  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  that, 
two  years  before,  a  proposal  to  consider  the  expe- 
diency of  all  appointments  being  for  a  limited  time, 
was  regularly  brought  up  from  one  of  the  Quarters, 

1  Testimony  of  A.  Lower,  Foster,  I.  370.  2  Ibid. 

3  Extracts  from  Minutes  of  M.  for  Suf.,  Foster,  II.  p.  477. 


232  PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE 

and  on  consideration  the  Yearly  Meeting  decided 
that  way  did  not  open  to  make  the  proposed  change."1 

In  reply  to  these  allegations,  the  following  facts  and 
considerations  are  submitted. 

1st.  For  some  years  after  the  institution  of  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings,  the  Yearly  Meeting  adopted, 
each  year,  a  minute  stating  in  substance ;  that  it  was 
continued,  as  then  constituted,  "reserving  to  each 
Quarterly  Meeting  the  right  of  changing  any  of  the 
members  in  the  places  where  they  were  respectively 
nominated."  Or,  as  expressed  in  one  of  the  minutes, 
"  reserving  to  the  Quarterly  meetings  the  right  of 
changing  their  members  when  they  think  proper."  2 
In  1768,  the  following  minute  was  adopted  by  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia :  "The  proceedings 
of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  for  the  year  past  being 
read  and  approved,  it  is  agreed  to  continue  that 
meeting,  agreeable  to  former  minutes,  until  this  meet- 
ing may  think  it  necessary  to  order  the  contrary."* 

As  the  Yearly  Meeting  has  never  ordered  the  con- 
trary, the  conclusion  is  unquestionable  that  the  Meet- 
ing for  Sufferings  has  been  continued  according  to 
former  minutes,  securing  the  rights  of  the  Quarterly 
meetings  to  change  their  representatives  when  they 
think  proper. 

The  institution  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  took 
place  in  the  year  1T56 ;  and  Buck's  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing appointed  that  year  four  representatives.  The 
next  year,  it  continued  two  of  these  in  that  station, 
and  appointed  two  others  as  representatives  "for  the 

1  Exhibit  No.  47,  Foster's  Rep.  II.  477. 

2  Minutes  of  Phila.  Y.  M.,  1757  to  1762  inclusive. 

3  See  Chapter  X.  on  Discipline. 


MEETING   FOR   SUFFERINGS,  PHILADELPHIA.   233 

ensuing  year."  It  is  most  probable  that  many  such 
cases  might  be  found  on  the  records  of  the  Quarterly 
meetings;  but  here  is  at  least  one  precedent,  show- 
ing that  the  right  of  changing  the  representatives  of 
the  Quarters  was  exercised. 

It  appears  to  have  been  the  general  practice  of  the 
Quarterly  meetings  to  continue  their  representatives 
in  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  until  they  resigned  or 
were  removed  by  death,  but  they  never  relinquished 
the  right  to  release  them  and  appoint  others ;  nor 
does  this  right  appear  to  have  been  called  in  question 
until  the  Southern  Quarter  undertook  to  release 
those  who  did  not  truly  represent  its  sentiments.1 

2d.  In  reply  to  the  second  position,  that  there  was 
no  vacancy,  it  may  be  stated,  that  one  of  the  former 
members,  Joseph  Turner,  did  resign,  and  Abraham 
Lower,  another,  requested,  as  he  had  served  for  ten 
or  twelve  years,  that  there  might  be  a  new  nomina- 
tion. 

3d.  And  as  to  the  third  position,  which  relates  to 
a  change  of  discipline,  it  is  obvious  that  no  alteration 
was  needed  to  enable  the  Quarterly  meetings  to 
change  their  representatives,  for  this  right  was 
guaranteed  to  them  by  the  Yearly  Meeting  and  had 
never  been  revoked.  The  proposition  alluded  to, 
which  contemplated  making  all  appointments  for  a 
limited  time,  and  which  the  Yearly  Meeting  did  not 
adopt,  has  no  bearing  on  the  question ;  for  when  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings  was  first  instituted,  the  mem- 
bers were  not  required  by  discipline  to  be  appointed 
for  a  limited  time,  and  yet  the  Quarterly  meetings 
had  the  right  to  remove  them  without  assigning  any 
reason. 

1  Testimony  of  Halliday  Jackson,  Foster's  Rep.  II.  97  to  101. 
20*  2  1 


234  PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE 

The  attempt  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  to 
impose  upon  the  Society  the  declaration  of  faith 
inserted  in  its  minutes  and  read  in  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, had  awakened  in  the  minds  of  many  Friends  a 
painful  distrust  of  its  ulterior  purposes ;  and  when  it 
subsequently  took  the  bold  stand  of  denying  to  a 
Quarterly  Meeting  the  right  to  change  its  represen- 
tatives, there  were  thousands  who  felt  that  their 
religious  liberty  was  in  danger. 

The  growing  importance  of  that  meeting,  and  the 
encroachments  that  might  be  apprehended  from  it, 
had  long  been  seen  by  some  sagacious  minds ;  and 
one  of  its  members,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, had  left  on  record  a  warning  of  the  danger. 
David  Cooper,  of  Woodbury  Monthly  Meeting,  who 
died  in  1795,  at  the  age  of  71  years,  left  with  his 
children  the  following  remarks  on  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings. 

"  I  am  free  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  this  meet- 
ing, which  you,  my  dear  children,  may  live  to  see 
realized,  if  well  founded.  It  is  now  about  twenty- 
five  years  since  its  establishment,  and  it  consisted  of 
twelve  members  appointed  by  the  Yearly  Meeting, 
and  four  by  each  Quarter,  making  thirty-six, —  two 
new  Quarterly  meetings  having  been  added  since, 
makes  the  standing  number  forty-four.  I  have  ob- 
served the  increasing  importance  of  this  meeting, 
which,  though  so  called,  is  only  a  standing  committee 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  It  is  a  truth  that  ought  not 
to  be  lost  sight  of,  that  whenever  a  subordinate  body 
becomes  too  important  either  from  its  members 
[numbers  ?]  or  the  weight  of  its  members,  it  will 
naturally  engross  a  power  and  consequence  beyond 
the  limits  intended  for  it.     It  will  thus  grow  more 


MEETING   FOR   SUFFERINGS,   PHILADELPHIA.  235 

or  less  out  of  the  reach  of  the  body  that  controls  it;  — 
the  superior  meeting  ought  strenuously  to  maintain 
its  standing. 

"  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  this  has  already  appeared 
to  be  too  much  the  case  with  that  meeting,  and  I 
fear  it  will  increase  with  time.  Its  name  implies  its 
business,  a  meeting  for  sufferings,  but  many  other 
matters  of  great  importance  to  the  Society  are  con- 
sidered and  debated  there ;  even  principles  of  faith 
have  been  frequently  the  subjects  of  discussion."1 

After  these  judicious  remarks  were  written,  other 
Quarterly  meetings  were  established,  and  thus  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings  was  further  increased  in  num- 
bers. In  the  year  1826  it  consisted  of  fifty-six  mem- 
bers, of  whom  all  were  of  the  class  called  Orthodox, 
except  ten  or  twelve.2  As  it  was  well  known  that 
not  more  than  one-third  of  the  members  of  that 
Yearly  Meeting  were  Orthodox,  it  is  obvious  that 
the  sentiments  of  the  body  were  not  represented  in 
the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  hence  it  became  an  in- 
tolerable grievance  when  this  "standing  committee" 
denied  to  the  Quarterly  meetings  their  ancient  right 
to  change  their  representatives,  and  thus  virtually 
declared  itself  independent  of  its  constituents. 

It  was  composed  of  some  of  the  most  influential 
men  in  the  Society,  a  large  proportion  of  them  re- 
siding in  or  near  the  city ;  and  such  was  their  power 
in  the  Yearly  Meeting,  that  no  change  of  discipline, 
limiting  or  defining  the  tenure  of  their  office,  could 
be  effected.  They  had  attained  a  position  from 
which  it  appeared  that  nothing  short  of  a  revolution 
in  the  Society  could  dislodge  them. 

1  The  Friend  or  Advocate  of  Truth,  Vol.  III.  No.  13. 

2  Testimony  of  Joseph  Whitall,  Foster's  Rep.  I.  253. 


236  DISTURBED    MEETINGS. 

The  Southern  Quarterly  Meeting  forwarded  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting  a  report  concerning  the  rejection  of 
its  representatives ;  but  there  was  little  hope  of  their 
grievances  being  redressed  by  a  body  in  which  party 
spirit  had  gained  the  ascendancy,  and  counteracted 
the  sweet  influences  of  brotherly  love. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

DISTURBED   MEETINGS. 

Oxe  of  the  chief  obstructions  to  harmonious  action 
in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia  and  most  of 
its  branches,  was  the  assumption  by  a  party,  that  the 
weight  was  all  on  their  side;  and  although  it  was 
known  that  they  were  greatly  in  the  minority,  the 
clerk  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  Samuel  Bettle,  who  was 
one  of  the  party,  determined  to  act  upon  that  principle. 
He  regarded  all  those  who  gave  their  voices  against 
the  adoption  of  the  declaration  of  faith  presented  by 
the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  as  having  no  weiglit  at  all, 
thus  virtually  disfranchising  them,  without  a  shadow 
of  authority.  Being  questioned  on  this  matter.  Sam- 
uel Bettle  testified  as  follows:  "I  never  considered 
them  entitled  to  any  weight  or  influence  at  all.  I 
mean  the  same  persons  who  had  expressed  them- 
selves in  relation  to  those  extracts,  and  in  opposition 
to  them  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  1823,  and  whose 
objections  I  have  quoted."1 

Some  of  those  who  objected  to  that  declaration  of 

1  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  p.  82. 


DISTURBED    MEETINGS.  237 

faith,  did  so  because  they  were  opposed  to  all  creeds; 
others  thought  the  extracts  from  the  writings  of  early 
Friends  were  garbled;  and  among  those  who  opposed 
its  adoption  were  many  whose  religious  experience 
and  uprightness  of  conduct  entitled  them  to  the 
highest  respect.  The  same  principle  by  which  these 
members  were  disfranchised  in  the  Yearly  Meeting 
was,  of  course,  applied  in  the  subordinate  meetings 
to  them,  and  to  all  who  did  not  coincide  with,  that 
party  which  assumed  to  be  "the  meeting."  It  was 
an  important  point  with  the  party  which  took  the 
name  of  Orthodox,  to  secure  for  their  side,  the  clerks, 
overseers,  trustees,  and  a  majority  of  the  important 
committees.  In  this  endeavor  they  were  so  success- 
ful, that  in  most  of  the  meetings  in  Philadelphia 
Quarter  they  obtained  the  ascendancy.1 

In  that  city,  the  two  parties  were  found  nearly  equal 
when  they  came  to  divide ;  but  of  the  five  Monthly 
meetings,  Green  Street  alone  was  able  to  withstand 
the  influence  of  that  powerful  combination  which 
controlled  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  and  all  the  Se- 
lect meetings  of  the  city.  In  the  other  Quarterly 
meetings,  ten  in  number,  the  Orthodox  party  were 
in  the  minority,  and  in  all  except  two  (Burlington 
and  Hadclonfield)  it  was  a  very  small  minority.  In 
the  whole  Yearly  Meeting  they  comprised  less  than 
one  third  of  the  members.2 

They  had,  however,  very  able  leaders,  and  in  point 
of  wealth  and  social  position,  many  of  them  stood 
pre-eminent  in  the  Society.  There  were  among 
them  men  and  women  of  sincere  piety,  who  had  be- 

1  Cockburn's  Review,  pp.  91,  92. 

2  Foster's  Report,  Exhibit  T.  Vol.  II.  p.  461. 

212 


238  DISTUKBED    MEETINGS. 

come  persuaded  that  heresy  was  abroad  and  must  be 
put  down.  For  this  purpose  they  were  induced  to 
resort  to  measures  that,  in  less  exciting  times,  they 
would  have  abhorred.  Among  them  there  was  also 
a  large  class  who  had  never  passed  through  the  re- 
fining process  of  Spiritual  baptism;  but  being  re- 
spected for  their  wealth,  intelligence,  and  orderly 
deportment,  they  were  appointed  on  committees,  or 
employed  as  clerks,  until  they  conceived  that  they 
were  qualified  for  service  in  the  church,  and  took 
an  active  part  in  its  discipline,  without  the  subjec- 
tion of  their  wills  to  the  divine  government. 

This  latter  class  was  indeed  found  in  both  parties, 
and  is  the  natural  result  of  traditional  religion  in  all 
societies. 

The  religious  engagement  of  Elias  Hicks  in  visiting 
the  families  of  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting  in  the 
Twelfth  month,  1822,  and  the  indorsement  of  unity 
and  approbation  placed  on  his  certificate  by  that  meet- 
ing, have  been  noticed  in  a  preceding  chapter. 

Leonard  Snowclen,  an  elder  of  that  meeting,  was 
present  when  the  indorsement  was  adopted,  and  on 
some  alteration  being  proposed  in  it,  remarked  that 
"he  thought  it  would  do."  After  thus  giving  his 
assent  to  the  action  of  the  meeting,  he  joined  with 
other  elders  in  the  city  in  signing  a  paper  which 
impeached  the  gospel  ministry  of  Elias  Hicks,  there- 
by counteracting  and  arraigning  the  judgment  of  his 
Monthly  Meeting.  In  consequence  of  this  and  other 
acts  of  opposition  to  the  meeting,  he  was  taken  un- 
der its  care  through  the  medium  of  the  overseers, 
and  after  continued  but  unavailing  efforts  to  effect  a 
reconciliation,  he  was  released  from  the  station  of 


DISTURBED   MEETINGS.  239 

elder,  but  his  rights  and  privileges  as  a  member  were 
not  impaired.1 

While  his  case  was  under  the  care  of  the  Monthly 
Meeting,  in  the  4th  month,  1823,  the  Preparative 
Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders  belonging  to  Green 
Street  Monthly  Meeting  took  up  the  subject,  and  re- 
quested the  aid  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  of  Ministers 
and  Elders  in  a  case  of  difficulty. 

This  interference  with  the  business  of  a  Meeting- 
for  Discipline  by  the  Select  meeting,  was  a  breach 
of  order,  and  is  expressly  prohibited  by  a  rule  of  dis- 
cipline. For  although  the  Select  meetings  are  author- 
ized to  extend  care  to  a  minister  or  an  elder,  who, 
through  "  negligence,  unfaithfulness,  or  otherwise 
has  lost  his  or  her  service  in  that  station,"  yet  it  is 
only  allowable  in  such  cases  as  are  "  not  under  the 
care  of  a  Meeting  for  Discipline  on  that  account." 

This  point  has  been  more  fully  elucidated  in  a  sec- 
tion of  Chapter  X.  relating  to  ministers  and  elders. 

It  is  obvious  that  an  elder  must  have  lost  his  use- 
fulness or  service  in  that  station,  when  he  has  ceased 
to  be  in  unity  with  the  Monthly  Meeting;  and  if  the 
position  were  admitted  that  Monthly  meetings  cannot 
release  elders  from  service  in  such  cases,  it  would  go 
far  towards  establishing  in  the  Society  an  irrespon- 
sible oligarchy. 

The  Quarterly  Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders  in 
Philadelphia  in  the  8th  month,  1823,  acted  upon  the 
application  from  the  Select  Preparative  Meeting  of 
Green  Street,  and  appointed  a  committee,  to  extend 
aid  and  advice.  This  committee,  after  having  charge 
of  the  case  more  than  a  year,  reported  that  Green 

1  Statement  of  Facts  by  Gn.  St  Mo.  Mg.,  Foster's  Eeport,  II.  445, 
and  Test,  of  A.  Lower,  I.  362. 


240  DISTURBED    MEETINGS. 

Street  Monthly  Meeting  had  interfered,  and  in  a  sum- 
mary manner  acted  in  relation  to  the  Friend  [Leo- 
nard Snowden]  in  such  a  way  "  that  they  consider 
him  as  not  retaining  his  place  in  the  Preparative 
Meeting  of  ministers  and  elders."1 

The  Quarterly  Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders,  on 
receiving  this  report,  referred  the  subject  to  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting  for  Discipline,  and  at  the  same  time 
Leonard  Snowden  addressed  to  the  last-named  meet- 
ing a  remonstrance,  which  he  called  an  appeal. 

In  this  appeal  he  states  that  "  his  religious  rights 
had  been  invaded"  by  Green  Street  Monthly  Meet- 
ing, and  that,  "being  virtually  placed  in  the  situation 
of  a  disowned  person,"  he  did  not  feel  himself  at 
liberty  to  attend  meetings  for  discipline,  or  to  exer- 
cise the  privileges  of  a  member.2  These  allegations 
were  unfounded,  as  it  was  well  known  that  he  had 
not  been  disowned,  nor  had  his  religious  rights  been 
invaded. 

The  station  of  an  elder  is  not  a  ri°dit  that  can 
be  claimed  by  any  member,  however  worthy  he  may 
be  to  occupy  it,  but  is  regarded  as  a  service  assigned 
by  the  Monthly  Meeting,  and  it  would  be  hard  indeed 
if  the  same  meeting  cannot  relieve  from  that  service 
those  whom  it  has  appointed.  We  know  that  the 
right  to  remove  elders  was  claimed  and  exercised  by 
Monthly  meetings  at  the  time  the  eldership  was  first 
instituted  in  Penns3dvania.3 

In  the  Book  of  Discipline  there  is  no  provision  for 
appeals  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  meeting,  ex- 
cept in  cases  of  disownment,  and  an  appeal  from  one 


1  Foster's  Report,  II.  481.  2  Ibid.  II.  482, 

8  See  Chapter  X.,  section  Ministers  and  Elders. 


DISTURBED    MEETINGS.  241 

who  had  been  an  elder,  to  be  reinstated  in  that  sta- 
tion, was  believed  to  be  without  authority  or  prece- 
dent in  the  Society.  The  introduction  of  Leonard 
Snowden's  case  into  the  Quarterly  Meeting  for  Disci- 
pline in  the  Eleventh  month,  1824,  produced  much 
discussion  and  some  excitement.  The  orthodox  elders 
were  very  active  and  urgent  for  it  to  be  taken  up; 
but  being  opposed  by  many,  it  was  postponed.1  At 
a  subsequent  Quarterly  Meeting  the  following  minute 
from  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting  was  received :  — 

"At  a  Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends  held  at  Green 
Street,  Philadelphia,  the  20th  of  First  month,  1825. 

"This  meeting  being  informed  by  our  representa- 
tives to  our  last  Quarterly  Meeting,  that  Leonard 
Snowden  had  presented  a  remonstrance,  appealing 
against  the  proceedings  of  Green  Street  Monthly 
Meeting  —  we  inform  the  Quarterly  Meeting  that  the 
said  paper  was  presented  without  acquainting  this 
meeting,  and  that  Leonard  Snowden  is  not  deprived 
of  any  of  his  rights  as  a  member  of  our  religious 
society. 

"The  foregoing  is  directed  to  be  included  in  the 
extracts  to  be  furnished  to  the  Quarterly  Meeting. 

"Extracted  from  the  minutes.  Joseph  Warner, 
Clerk." 

The  Quarterly  Meeting  not  being  able  to  come  to 
any  decision  in  this  case,  postponed  it  from  time  to 
time,  until  the  Fifth  month,  1826,  when  it  was  con- 
cluded to  ask  the  advice  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  in 
regard  to  it  as  "  a  case  of  difficulty." 

In  the  8th  month  of  the  same  year  two  women 
Friends,  who  had  manifested  "  open  and  continued 

1  Testimony  of  A.  Lower,  Foster,  I.  362. 
IV  — 21 


242  DISTURBED    MEETINGS. 

opposition,"  were  released  from  the  eldership  lyy  Green 
Street  Monthly  Meeting,  on  the  ground,  that  their  ser- 
vices  as  elders  had  ceased.  In  a  document  issued  by 
the  Monthly  Meeting,  it  is  stated  that  they  were  re- 
leased from  that  service  on  the  authority  of  the  fol- 
lowing discipline:  — 

"1.  That  part  of  the  third  query  just  cited,  which 
requires  that  ministers  and  elders  he  'in  unity  one 
with  another,  and  with  the  meeting  they  belong  to.' 
Page  96. 

"2.  That  part  of  our  discipline  respecting  elders, 
which  directs  that  Monthly  meetings  take  care  '  that 
the  Friends  chosen  for  that  service  be  prudent  solid 
Friends,  and  that  they  do  carefully  discharge  the  trust 
contided  to  them.'  Page  63.  Both  these  injunctions 
of  the  discipline  obvious!}7  make  it  obligatory  on 
Monthly  meetings  to  have  such  elders  only  as  are  in 
unity  with  them,  and  also  to  have  none  that  are  not 
qualified  for  the  station,  or  that  do  not  '  carefully  dis- 
charge the  trust  confided  to  them.' 

"3.  That  part  of  our  discipline  which  directs  what 
course  shall  be  pursued  in  meetings  of  ministers  and 
elders  in  reference  to  the  release  of  a  member  of  those 
meetings  who  may  'be  thought  by  negligence,  un- 
faithfulness, or  otherwise,  to  have  lost  his  or  her  ser- 
vice in  that  station,  so  as  to  become  the  subject  of 
uneasiness  and  burdensome,' — yet  manifestly  giving 
an  antecedent  and  paramount  right  and  authority  to 
'monthly  meetings  to  take  such  individuals  under  care, 
in  the  words  following,  viz. :  'yet  not  so  as  to  be  under 
the  care  of  a  meeting  of  discipline  on  that  account,  or  for 
misconduct.'  The  words,  'that  account,'  manifestly 
referring  to  loss  of  service,  by  negligence,  unfaithful- 
ness, or  otherwise."  Page  68. 


DISTURBED    MEETINGS.  243 

The  two  women  Friends  who  had  been  released 
from  the  eldership,  offered  to  the  Quarterly  Meeting 
of  Philadelphia  a  written  communication,  stating  in 
general  terms  that  they  were  aggrieved  by  the  pro- 
ceedings of  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting,  without 
specifying  in  what  respects  they  considered  themselves 
aggrieved.  It  seems  they  regarded  the  eldership  a 
desirable  office,  but  it  is  obvious  that  no  person  worthy 
of  it  would  consent  to  hold  it  in  opposition  to  the  will 
of  the  meeting,  unless  influenced  by  others,  in  order 
to  promote  the  purposes  of  a  party. 

In  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  a  strong  effort  was  made 
to  have  this  considered  as  an  appeal  case,  but  this 
measure  was  overruled.  The  representatives  and  other 
members  of  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting  attempted 
to  explain  the  nature  of  the  grievance,  but  the  opposite 
party,  who  must  have  known  what  it  was,  would  not 
allow  it,  on  the  plea  that  the  Quarterly  Meeting  not 
being  officially  informed,  should  appoint  a  committee 
to  hear  the  complainants.  A  committee  being  accord- 
ingly appointed,  it  undertook  to  transform  the  memo- 
rial of  the  rejected  elders  into  an  appeal,  and  called  on 
the  Monthly  Meeting  to  produce  the  minutes  of  its 
proceedings.  The  Monthly  Meeting,  considering  that 
the  Quarterly  Meeting  had  recently  referred  a  similar 
case  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  for  its  advice,  which  had 
not  yet  been  given  ;  and  believing  that  the  committee 
were  transcending  their  authority,  declined  to  comply 
with  the  request,  and  refused  to  nominate  any  com- 
mittee of  their  own  on  the  case. 

The  Quarterly  Meeting's  committee,  however,  per- 
sisted in  their  determination  to  make  it  an  appeal 
case,  and  reported  as  their  judgment  that  the  proceed- 
ings of  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting  in  relation  to 


244  DISTURBED    MEETINGS. 

the  two  women  Friends  should  be  annulled.  As  they 
did  not  mention  in  their  report  what  it  was  that  Green 
Street  Monthly  Meeting  had  clone,  the  representatives 
and  some  of  the  members  of  that  meeting  attempted 
to  explain  that  it  was  an  appeal  for  the  office  of  an  elder, 
and  that  these  two  Friends  had  merely  been  released 
from  that  station.  They  were  told  that  "the  mem- 
bers of  Green  Street  Meeting  could  not  be  heard," 
and  the  clerk,  notwithstanding  their  remonstrances, 
recorded  a  minute  on  the  Quarterly  Meeting  books 
adopting  the  judgment  of  the  committee. 

In  the  11th  month,  1826,  at  tlie  Quarterly  Meeting 
of  Philadelphia  a  proposition  originated  in  the  women's 
meeting  to  visit  the  Monthly  meetings;  no  specific, 
object  being  stated,  it  was  brought  into  the  men's 
meeting  under  a  profession  of  religious  concern.  The 
Quarterly  Meeting  had,  for  years,  been  divided  in 
sentiment,  and  was  frequently  convulsed  with  the 
efforts  of  contending  parties.  It  was,  therefore,  in  no 
condition  to  appoint  a  committee  that  would  promote 
harmony  in  the  body.  The  proposition,  while  under 
consideration  in  the  men's  meeting,  met  with  such 
decided  opposition  that  the  clerk  declared  he  could 
not  conscientiously  receive  names  for  it.  After  a  con- 
test of  several  hours,  the  meeting  adjourned  till  the 
next  day,  and,  during  the  interval,  the  clerk  appears 
to  have  been  relieved  of  his  scruples,  for  when  the 
meeting  again  convened,  he  complied  without  hesita- 
tion with  the  wishes  of  the  Orthodox  party;  in  total 
disregard  of  the  judgment  expressed  by  a  large  part 
of  tlie  members.2 

"When  the  committee  met  to  ascertain  the  object  in 

1  Statement  of  Facts,  Foster's  Rep.,  II.  445  to  451, 

2  Ibid.,  and  Cockburn's  Review,  p.  125. 


DI3TUKBED    MEETINGS  245 

view,  two  of  the  members,  not  being  considered  ortho- 
dox, were  treated  with  great  indifference,  and  when  the 
rest  were  called  together  to  agree  upon  a  report,  these 
two  did  not  receive  notification.  At  the  next  Quar- 
terly Meeting,  held  in  the  2d  mo.  1827,  the  committee 
reported  attention  to  their  appointment,  and  were 
continued,  except  the  two  obnoxious  members,  whose 
places  were  supplied  from  the  ranks  of  the  orthodox.1 
Although  the  purpose  for  which  this  committee  was 
appointed  did  not  clearly  appear,  subsequent  develop- 
ments showed,  as  will  hereafter  be  related,  that  the 
very  existence  of  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting  was 
in  peril. 

While  these  events  were  in  progress,  the  meetings 
for  worship  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  were  frequently 
scenes  of  great  disorder  and  excitement  by  reason  of 
the  open  opposition  made  by  some  of  the  elders  and 
others  of  the  Orthodox  party  to  the  discourses  of  those 
ministers  that  they  deemed  heretical  in  doctrine.2 
In  thus  publicly  opposing  ministers  from  other  Yearly 
meetings,  who' came  among  them  with  proper  creden- 
tials, they  violated  a  rule  of  discipline,  and  impaired 
the  harmony  of  the  Society.  Among  the  instances 
of  disorder  arising  from  this  cause,  the  most  noted 
was  the  opposition  to  Elias  Hicks  at  Pine  Street  Meet- 
ing, in  the  12th  month,  1826.  A  part  of  his  discourse 
which  gave  offence  on  that  occasion,  together  with 
the  strictures  of  Jonathan  Evans  and  Isaac  Lloyd, 
have  been  given  in  a  preceding  chapter.  The  doc- 
trines which  Elias  Hicks  then  delivered   have  been 


1  Cockburn's  Review,  p.  126. 

2  Test,  of  H.  Jackson,  Foster's  Rep.,  II.  37,  38,  43. 
21*  IV  — 2  K 


246  DISTUKBED    MEETINGS. 

shown  to  be  consistent  with  those  of  the  early  Friends, 
and  with  the  Scriptures.1 

In  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  he  attended 
Friends'  meeting  in  the  Western  district  [12th  Street], 
where  there  was  a  very  lar^e  con  ore  nation,  as  indeed 
there  always  was  where  he  attended  in  those  day-. 
Although  the  house  was  excessively  crowded,  and 
many  were  standing,  the  meeting  was  solemn  and 
quiet  while  he  was  engaged  in  ministry.  As  soon  as 
he  sat  down,  an  orthodox  elder  of  that  meeting  arose 
and  expressed  disapprobation  of  the  doctrines  de- 
livered, which  caused  great  excitement  and  commo- 
tion, especially  among  the  younger  part  of  the  audi- 
ence. Elias  endeavored  to  allay  the  excitement, 
saying  mildly  to  the  people,  "Hear  what  the  Friend 
has  to  say."  When  quiet  was  restored,  Willet  Hicks, 
of  ISTew  York,  delivered  a  short,  impressive  discourse, 
and  the  meeting  closed  without  further  disturbance.2 

The  doctrines  delivered  at  these  two  meetings, 
and  the  conduct  of  the  audiences,  were  made  the 
ground  of  a  complaint  against  Elias  Picks,  and  the 
Monthly  meetings  held  at  Pine  Street  and  Twelfth 
Street  sent  a  deputation  to  Jericho  Monthly  Meeting, 
Long  Island,  where  that  venerable  minister  resided. 
The  two  Orthodox  Friends  laid  their  documents  on 
the  table,  and  were  present  while  Elias  Hicks  re- 
turned a  certificate  of  concurrence  that  had  been 
granted  him  at  a  former  meeting,  together  with  sev- 
eral indorsements  of  unity  and  approbation  received 
from  meetings  where  he  had  been  laboring  in  the 
ministry.  He  also  opened,  at  that  time,  a  prospect 
of  a  religious  visit  to  the  families  of  Friends  of  the 

1  See  Chap.  Till.,  Section  4. 

2  Test,  of  II.  Jackson,  Foster,  II.  42,  80,  81. 


DISTURBED    MEETINGS.  247 

two  Monthly  meetings  of  "Westbury  and  Jericho, 
which  was  cordially  approved  by  the  meeting,  and 
all  the  business  that  came  before  it  was  transacted  in 
harmony.  The  communications  from  Philadelphia 
were  referred  to  a  committee  without  being  read, 
and  at  the  next  Monthly  Meeting  a  report  was  made 
in  favor  of  reading  them,  which  was  done ;  but  they 
were  deemed  unworthy  of  further  notice,  and  no 
action  of  any  kind  was  taken  on  them.1 

At  Concord  Quarterly  Meeting,  held  at  Darby  in 
the  Eleventh  month,  1826,  Elias  Hicks  was  in  attend- 
ance, also  Nicholas  Brown  from  Canada,  Townsend 
Hawkhurst  from  Long  Island,  and  Elizabeth  Robson 
and  Ann  Jones  from  England.  On  the  day  preced- 
ing the  Quarterly  Meeting  for  discipline,  a  meeting 
of  ministers  and  elders  was  held,  in  which  Elias 
Hicks  and  Nicholas  Brown,  as  well  as  some  other 
Friends,  were  eno-a^ed  in  the  ministry. 

During  the  sitting  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  Eliz- 
abeth Robson  and  Ann  Jones  asked  permission  to 
visit  the  menis  meeting,  and  were  admitted.  They 
both  delivered  long  communications,  and  that  of 
Ann  Jones  was  particularly  offensive  to  a  large  part 
of  the  meeting.  At  the  close  of  the  sitting,  the 
elders  of  the  men's  Quarterly  Meeting  were  requested 
to  convene  in  the  evening,  which  they  did,  and  the 
subject  of  Ann  Jones'  communication  was  taken 
into  consideration.  There  were  fourteen  present,  all 
of  whom,  except  one,  expressed  dissatisfaction  with 
the  discourse,  and  were  in  favor  of  seeking  an 
interview  with  her. 

It  being  found,  on  inquiry,  that  she  had  gone  to 

1  Letters  of  Elias  Hicks,  p.  199. 


248  DISTUEBED    MEETINGS. 

Philadelphia,  the  elders  of  Darby  Monthly  Meeting 
concluded  to  address  a  letter  to  her.  It  is  couched 
in  courteous  language,  and  describes  her  discourse  as 
follows : 

"As  near  as  we  can  recollect,  after  stating  that 
thou  had  brought  nothing  with  thee,  and  did  not 
know  what  thou  might  have  to  communicate,  thou 
mentioned  being  oppressed  with  a  sense  of  the  infi- 
delity that  was  spreading  far  and  wide,  and  that  thou 
had  heard  in  that  house,  things  that  had  pierced  thee 
to  thy  very  soul; — that  thou  had  heard  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,  the  Wonderful  Counsellor,  the  Mighty 
God,  the  Everlasting  Father  and  Prince  of  Peace, 
lowered  down  to  a  mere  man,  and  that  sacrifice  de- 
nied which  he  offered  without  the  gates  of  Jeru- 
salem. That  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  blood  of  the 
everlasting  covenant,  was  trodden  underfoot,  and 
counted  an  unholy  thing.  That  these  diabolical 
doctrines  had  their  origin  in  a  proud  Luciferian 
spirit,  and  was  a  sin  that  ought  to  be  punished  by  the 
Judges;  and  that  if  the  elders,  on  this  extensive  con- 
tinent, had  kept  their  places,  they  would  have  been 
able  to  put  a  stop  to  these  infidel  doctrines  that  were 
spreading  far  and  wide  among  us, —  adding  that  it 
was  not  the  individuals,  but  the  spirit  thou  bore  tes- 
testimony  against.  This,  we  think,  is  near  the  sub- 
stance of  a  considerable  part  of  thy  communication. 

"  Our  discipline  in  this  country  points  out  an  or- 
der to  be  observed,  which  ought  to  be  imperative, 
especially  on  those  who  are  travelling  in  truth's  ser- 
vice. Although  thou  mentioned  no  names,  we  think 
thou  made  some  personal  allusion  by  referring  to 
something  thou  had  heard  in  that  house,  perhaps  the 
day  previous.     If  anything  there  had  been  delivered 


DISTURBED    MEETINGS.  249 

that  gave  thee  such  uneasiness,  it  would  have  been 
more  consistent  with  gospel  order  to  have  sought  a 
private  opportunity  with  the  individuals,  than  to 
have  brought  such  a  railing  accusation  against  them 
in  a  large  assembly,  very  few  of  whom  were  present 
the  day  before,  and  therefore  could  not  tell  to  what 
thou  wast  alluding.  And  as  those  whom  we  suppose 
thou  wast  implicating,  by  alluding  to  something 
thou  had  heard  in  that  house,  were  ministers  in  hi^h 
estimation  with  their  friends  at  home,  and  travelling 
on  a  religious  account  with  the  unity  of  their  respec- 
tive meetings  equally  with  thyself — they  were  also 
with  thyself  equally  subject  to  the  care  of  elders 
wherever  they  gave  cause  of  uneasiness.  Thy  con- 
duct in  this  respect  we  must  protest  against,  as  in- 
consistent with  gospel  order,  unbecoming  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  towards  their  fellow-laborers  (even 
supposing  thou  had  apprehended  some  unsoundness 
of  doctrine),  and  calculated  to  sow  discord  among 
brethren,  and  produce  disorder  in  the  church. 

"  But  we  were  all  present  at  the  meeting  of  minis- 
ters and  elders  the  day  previous,  and  heard  what  was 
delivered,  and  are  fully  satisfied  in  our  own  minds, 
that  thy  charges  were  not  correct.  The  character 
and  mission  of  the  Messiah  was  exalted,  and  held  up 
to  view  as  our  true  pattern,  instead  of  being  brought 
down  to  the  level  of  a  mere  man, — the  sacrifice  of 
our  sinful  affections  on  the  cross  clearly  set  forth  as 
the  only  means  of  reconciliation  with  God,  and  the 
life  of  Christ  in  the  soul  of  man,  as  the  alone  atoning 
blood  that  can  effectually  wash  away  our  sins.  And 
as  George  Fox  testifies,  "there  are  none  know  Christ 
nor  his  sufferings,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God  within," 
so  we  believe  propitiation   to   be   an   experimental 

2K2 


250  DISTURBED    MEETINGS. 

work  in  the  soul  of  man,  and  fully  consistent  with  a 
right  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  doc- 
trines taught  by  our  early  Friends  generally."    *  *  * 

The  letter,  after  stating  that  her  charges  of  infidel- 
it}'  were  nowise  applicable  to  the  state  of  their  Quar- 
terly Meeting,  recommends  to  her  a  close  attention 
to  the  divine  gift,  which  would  give  her  a  clear  sight 
of  the  true  state  of  the  church,  and  make  her  instru- 
mental in  healing  the  breaches  already  made.  It 
was  signed  by  John  Hunt,  Edward  Garrigues,  John 
H.  Bunting,  and  Hallida}-  Jackson.1 

"I  think  it  was  the  next  First-day,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,"  continues  Halliday  Jackson  in  his  testi- 
mony, "after  she  had  received  this  letter,  she  with 
her  husband  and  several  others  came  out  to  Darby 
Meeting,  and  as  if  she  thought  she  had  not  done 
her  business  well  before,  poured  out  another  flood  of 
declamation  and  crimination  upon  us,  stating  that 
she  believed  we  had  been  led  astray  by  wicked  and 
designing  men, —  that  she  had  preached  the  gospel  to 
the  fishermen,  the  sailors  and  the  miners,  in  her  own 
country  —  men  that  we  would  disdain,  as  she  said,  to 
set  with  the  dogs  of  our  flocks;  and  they  would  even 
blush  at  our  conduct.  And  among  many  other 
things,  I  think  she  charged  us  with  denying  or  un- 
dervaluing the  Scriptures;  and  that  the  heathen  who 
never  had  the  Scriptures  would  go  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  before  us,  or  something  to  this  amount, — 
and  I  believe  nearly  the  words  that  I  have  repeated 
she  did  express."  After  this  second  attack  upon  the 
Friends  at  Darby,  she  was  visited  by  Halliday  Jack- 
son and  another  elder,  at  her  lodgings  in  Philadel- 

1  Foster's  Report,  Exhibit  S.,  Vol.  II.  p.  400. 


DISTURBED    MEETINGS.  251 

phia.  She  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  their  letter, 
and  did  not  call  in  question  the  statement  it  con- 
tained, but  gave  them  no  satisfaction.1 

The  same  witness,  alluding  particularly  to  Ann 
Jones  and  Anna  Braithwaite,  expressed  the  follow- 
ing sentiments :  "  I  believe  that  the  visit  of  those 
English  women,  and  the  part  they  had  taken  gen- 
erally in  the  course  of  their  visit  to  this  country, 
greatly  tended  to  accelerate,  and  finally  to  produce 
the  separation  that  has  taken  place,  not  only  in  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  but  also  in  several 
of  the  other  Yearly  meetings  on  the  continent  of 
America."2 

At  a  public  meeting  for  worship  in  New  York, 
held  6th  month  1st,  1826,  some  of  the  English  Friends 
were  in  attendance.  A  stenographer  who  was  pres- 
ent, has  given,  in  a  note  to  one  of  the  sermons  then 
delivered,  the  following  account  of  a  deeply  interest- 
ing scene  that  took  place. 

"  As  the  circumstances  of  this  meeting  were  pecu- 
liar, and  have  been  variously  represented,  it  becomes 
the  duty  of  the  stenographer  to  give  a  statement  of 
facts  as  they  appeared  to  him  at  the  time. 

"At  an  early  period  of  the  meeting  Mrs.  Eobson 
rose,  and  continued  to  speak  for  more  than  an  hour. 
She  was  very  soon  succeeded  by  Mrs.  Braithwaite  in 
the  foregoing  prayer ;  immediately  after  which,  Rich- 
ard Jordan  and  Elisha  Bates,  who  sat  at  the  head  of 
the  meeting,  shook  hands  as  the  customary  signal 
for  a  separation  ;  but,  contrary  to  anything  ever  be- 
fore witnessed  by  the  stenographer,  or  by  any  other 


1  Testimony  of  H.  Jackson,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  II.  pp.  86  to  88. 

2  Ibid. 


252   PHILADELPHIA    YEAKLY    MEETING    OF    1827. 

person  with  whom  he  has  conversed,  not  a  solitary 
individual,  among  more  than  two  thousand,  was  seen 
to  move  ! 

"In  the  course  of  about  a  minute,  there  was  another 
and  a  similar  attempt  made  to  close  the  meeting,  by 
R.  Jordan,  E.  Robson,  A.  Braithwaite,  and  some  per- 
sons occupying  the  second  galleries,  but  it  was  with 
the  same  effect !  A  profound  silence  now  pervaded 
the  whole  of  this  large  assembly,  and,  in  breathless 
expectation,  every  eye  seemed  riveted  with  intense 
interest  upon  the  galleries.  The  whole  meeting,  si- 
multaneously breaking  through  the  rules  of  the  so- 
ciety, remained  fixed  and  immovable,  as  if  controlled 
by  some  invisible  power.  Such  was  the  effect,  that 
the  beholder  might  have  easily  conceived  himself 
surrounded  by  a  congregation  of  statues,  instead  of 
animate  beings.  During  this  interval,  Mr.  Wether- 
ald  rose  and  delivered  the  following  discourse,  which 
being  succeeded  b}7  a  few  remarks  from  Elias  Hicks, 
a  short  pause  ensued  —  when  Mr.  Hicks  and  Mr. 
Wetherald  shook  hands,  and  the  meeting  quietly 
dispersed." l 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

THE   PHILADELPHIA   YEARLY   MEETING   OF   1827 

As  the  time  approached  for  the  assembling  of  Phi- 
ladelphia Yearly  Meeting,  in  the  Spring  of  1827,  the 
whole   Society  was  agitated  with   conflicting  hopes 


T.  Wetherald's  Sermons,  Phil.  Ed.  1826. 


EXTRACTS   FEOM    JOHN    COMLY'S   JOURNAL.    253 

and  fears.  It  is  impossible  for  those  who  have  not 
participated  in  the  proceedings  of  Friends'  Yearly 
meetings,  nor  been  imbued  with  the  spirit  that 
pervades  them,  to  appreciate  the  intense  interest 
with  which  every  important  movement  of  the  body 
is  contemplated  by  its  members.  They  have  always 
been,  in  some  respects,  a  peculiar  people :  circum- 
scribed in  their  pursuits  by  their  self-denying  testi- 
monies,—  debarred  from  fashionable  amusements  by 
their  conscientious  scruples,  —  and  educated  to  rever- 
ence the  religious  principles  of  their  forefathers, — 
they  are  drawn  by  a  strong  affinity  to  seek  for  society 
chiefly  among  themselves,  although  their  liberal  doc- 
trines encourage  Christian  charity  to  all  mankind. 
This  partial  isolation  from  the  world,  which  in  former 
times  was  more  observable  than  now,  contributed  to 
restrict  their  intercourse  with  other  relio-ious  societies, 
and  to  cause  increased  attachment  to  their  own. 

Prior  to  the  unhappy  dissensions  produced  by 
doctrinal  controversy,  religious  intolerance,  and  de- 
famation, the  Society  had  been  remarkable  for  its 
harmony  and  brotherly  love ;  but  now  jealousy  and 
distrust  prevailed,  the  meetings  for  discipline  in  the 
city  of  Philadelphia  were  scenes  of  disputation,  and 
even  into  their  assemblies  for  divine  worship,  once  so 
solemn  and  reverential,  the  demon  of  discord  had 
entered. 

John  Conily,  who  lived  at  Byberry,  was  not  un- 
frequently  a  visitor  in  the  city,  and  has  left  in  his 
Journal  the  following  remarks  :  "  The  solemnity  of 
silent  adoration  was  often  disturbed  by  denunciations 
from  the  gallery  against  infidelity  and  other  imagined 
absurdities.  Doctrines,  till  now  unheard  in  meet- 
ings of  Friends,  were  reiterated  and  enforced  with 
22 


254   EXTRACTS    FROM    JOHN    COMLY'S    JOURNAL. 

threatenings  on  those  who  should  dare  to  reject 
them.  Thus  dismay  and  confusion  increased;  the 
youth  and  little  children  went  to  meetings  with  re- 
luctance ;  young  men  and  women  absented  them- 
selves ;  some  Friends  openly  talked  of  resigning 
their  rights  in  such  a  society,  and  many  were  exceed- 
ingly tried  on  account  of  their  families  and  children. 
Many  sober  inquirers  and  friendly  people  who  had 
flocked  to  Friends'  meetings  now  declined  and  left 
their  attendance.  Thus  the  public  meetings  dimin- 
ished in  numbers,  and  the  comfort  and  edification 
once  found  in  attending  them  was  little  to  be  felt  or 
enjoyed  by  the  sincere  seeker  after  truth.  'The  ways 
of  Zion  mourned,  and  the  travellers  walked  in  by- 
ways.' 

"Having  thus  viewed  the  awful  state  of  Friends 
in  the  city,  and  having  seen  the  spreading  of  the 
same  spirit  in  various  parts  of  our  Yearly  Meeting, 
my  mind  had  shared  with  others  in  deep  exercise  on 
account  of  these  things,  and  became  impressed  with 
a  religious  concern  to  make  a  visit  to  the  city,  in 
order  to  mingle  with  Friends,  and  to  see  and  feel 
whether  any  opening  might  present  for  active  labor, 
in  endeavoring  to  promote  a  reconciliation  between 
the  two  contending  parties.  In  accordance  with  this 
view  and  impression,  I  attended  the  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing of  Ministers  and  Elders  held  there  in  the  Second 
month,  1827,  in  which  I  had  a  full  view  of  the  na- 
ture of  that  spirit  that  was  seeking  to  bear  rule  in 
the  Society."  *  *  *  * 

"  Such  a  select  meeting  I  had  never  before  attended. 
Painful  indeed  the  spectacle  !  But  I  learned  some- 
thing of  the  reality  of  what  before  I  had  only  heard 
'  by  the  hearing  of  the  ear.'     The  meeting  not  being 


EXTRACTS    FROM   JOHN    COMLY'S    JOURNAL.   255 

able  to  get  through  its  business  till  near  four  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon,  occasioned  a  long  sitting,  trying  to 
the  patience,  but  more  so  to  the  gentle  feelings  of 
Christian  meekness  and  love. 

"  Although  this  painful  meeting  afforded  little  pros- 
pect of  a  reconciliation,  my  mind  was  turned  toward 
seeking  for  an  opening  to  converse  with  some  of  the 
active  ones,  in  order  to  see  and  feel  whether  any  door 
of  hope  remained  for  healing  the  awful  breach.  But 
some  of  them  having  long  appeared  to  regard  me 
with  an  eye  of  suspicious  jealousy,  afforded  no  oppor- 
tunity for  such  an  interview.  Cold,  distant,  inhospi- 
table, they  passed  by  and  left  me  to  myself.  But  I 
learned  much  by  this  day's  observation. 

"The  next  day  being  First-day,  I  attended  Pine 
Street  meeting.  Silence  appeared  proper  for  me, 
and  a  state  of  childlike  docility.  But  my  heart  was 
warmed  with  love  to  my  fellow-creatures,  and  tender 
compassion  joined  with  Christian  sympathy  flowed 
towards  them. 

"On  Second-day  attended  the  general  Quarterly 
Meeting,  and  was  a  silent  observer  of  much  confu- 
sion  and  disorder.  In  the  altercations  that  ensued 
on  several  subjects  brought  before  the  meeting,  I  saw 
the  spirit  of  strife  and  contention  rise  higher  and 
higher,  and  that  both  parties  were  wasting  their 
strength  for  naught,  and  dissipating  the  feelings  of 
brotherly  kindness  in  endeavors  on  the  one  hand  to 
carry  through  certain  measures,  and  on  the  other  to 
oppose  and  prevent  it.  '  Contention  and  personal 
reflection '  were  not  kept  out  of  this  meeting.  Friends 
were  interrupted  while  speaking,  harsh  epithets  were 
applied  to  some,  and  irritation  and  warmth    mani- 


256   EXTRACTS    FROM   JOHN    COMLY's    JOURNAL. 

fested  the   unfitness  of  the  meeting  to  transact  its 
business."  *  *  *  * 

"Under  these  impressions  and  awful  views  of  the 
lamentable  state  of  disorder  into  which  the  Society 
was  plunged,  my  mind  was  opened  to  see  more  clearly 
that  this  contest  would  result  in  a  separation  of  the 
two  conflicting  parts  of  the  Society,  as  the  only  means 
of  saving  the  whole  from  a  total  wreck ;  and  the  way 
and  manner  of  this  separation  was  clearly  unfolded 
to  my  mental  vision :  that  on  the  part  of  Friends  it 
must  be  effected  in  the  peaceable  spirit  of  the  non- 
resisting  lamb, — first,  by  ceasing  from  the  spirit  of 
contention  and  strife,  and  then  uniting  together  in 
the  support  of  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  Society 
of  Friends,  separate  and  apart  from  those  who  had 
introduced  the  difficulties,  and  who  claimed  to  be  the 
orthodox  part  of  the  Society. 

"A  duty  now  presented  to  labour  with  Friends  to 
be  still  and  quiet,  and  let  the  others  go  on  with  their 
schemes  and  operations  unmolested;  that  there  was  no 
use  in  thus  spending  their  strength;  and  that  a  way  of 
safety  was  about  to  open,  by  withdrawing  from  these 
scenes  of  contention  and  disorder.  In  pursuing  this 
duty,  and  spreading  the  views  that  were  given  me  of  a 
quiet  peaceable  retreat  from  this  unavailing  contest,  the 
only  means  of  effecting  it  appeared  to  be,  that  Friends 
in  the  cicy  cease  from  all  contention,  and  then  throw 
themselves  into  the  arms  of  their  country  friends,  by 
requesting  of  some  neighbouring  Monthly  meeting, 
where  they  were  generally  united,  to  acknowledge  and 
receive  them  into  its  bosom  as  members,  without  cer- 
tificates, because  it  was  obvious  they  could  not  obtain 
them  from  their  respective  meetings,  if  applied  for. 
And  this  departure  from  the  common  usage  of  the 


EXTRACTS    FROM    JOHN    COMLY'S    JOURNAL.     257 

discipline  would  be  all  the  change  that  need  be  made 
in  the  order  of  society.  The  sympathy  and  tender 
feelings  of  Friends  in  the  country  would  doubtless 
operate  toward  their  suffering,  fugitive  Friends  in  the 
city,  and  they  will  risk  all  consequences  under  the 
consciousness  of  the  purity  of  their  motives.  From 
a  monthly  meeting  which  should  thus  adopt  the 
golden  rule,  the  concern  would  spread  to  a  quarterly 
meeting,  which  would  approve  the  measure ;  and  at 
length  other  quarters  would  unite  therein,  till  a  yearly 
meeting  of  Friends  might  come  together  in  love,  in 
harmony,  and  peace. 

"  Among  the  effects  that  may  result  from  such  a 
quiet,  peaceable  retreat  from  the  scenes  of  discord  that 
now  disgrace  the  Society,  a  prospective  view  was  held 
up  that  the  youth  would  be  gathered  into  a  calm; 
meetings  would  again  be  precious,  instructive  seasons ; 
a  living  gospel  ministry  would  be  revived ;  and  many 
would  be  drawn  to  attend  Friends'  meetings  who 
have  latterly  absented  themselves  therefrom;  disci- 
pline might  again  become  a  blessing  to  society,  and 
the  testimonies  of  truth  be  again  advanced  and 
upheld."1 

This  ample  extract  from  the  Journal  of  John  Comly 
is  deemed  appropriate,  as  the  clearest  exposition  we 
have  of  the  motives  which  actuated  him  and  induced 
him  to  propose  to  his  friends  "  a  quiet  retreat,"  not 
from  the  Society  of  Friends,  but  from  the  scenes  of 
disorder  and  contention  that  had  destroyed  its  useful- 
ness. Others  may  have  conceived  a  similar  plan,  but 
he  appears  to  have  been  the  first  to  propose  it.  The 
act  of  separation  did  not  originate  with  Elias  Hicks, 


1  Journal  of  J.  Comly,  p.  305  to  310. 
22  *  2  L 


258   PHILADELPHIA    YEAELY    MEETING    OF    1827. 

as  some  have  supposed,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  he  was  consulted  on  the  occasion. 

The  course  recommended  bv  John  Comlv,  and  ulti- 
mately  adopted,  affords  abundant  evidence  that  he 
and  his  friends  were  actuated  by  the  peaceable  Spirit 
of  the  Lamb.  Many  have  doubted  whether  they  were 
"wise  as  serpents,"  but  none  can  deny  that  they  were 
"harmless  as  doves."  They  were  fully  persuaded  that 
the  orthodox  part}'  in  Philadelphia,  having  the  clerks 
of  four  of  the  Monthly  meetings  on  their  side,  and 
claiming  to  be  the  weighty  part  of  the  meetings,  were 
preparing  to  enter  upon  a  system  of  disownment,  in 
order  to  eject  from  membership  all  who  opposed 
them.  "I  imparted  to  Friends,"  writes  John  Comly, 
"a  way  of  escape  for  them,  if  a  system  of  disown- 
ment should  be  adopted  by  the  ruling  party,  now 
nearly  ready  to  use  the  Discipline  for  making  a 
separation." 

In  order  to  prevent  the  scattering  of  the  flock, 
which  he  thought  would  result  from  such  measures, 
he  visited  several  of  the  country  meetings,  and  con- 
ferred with  the  most  experienced  and  influential 
Friends  in  relation  to  the  momentous  concerns  that 
occupied  his  attention.  Some  of  them  appeared  cau- 
tious and  doubtful,  but  most  of  those  he  consulted 
sympathized  with  him,  and  embraced  the  views  he 
presented. 

On  the  14th  of  the  Fourth  month,  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing of  Ministers  and  Elders,  usually  called  the  Select 
Yearly  Meeting,  convened  in  Philadelphia.  The  Eng- 
lish Friends,  George  and  Ann  Jones  and  Elizabeth 
Robson,  were  in  attendance,  and  took  an  active  part. 

The  answers  to  the  second  query,  which  relates  to 
the  state  of  the  ministiy,  were  favorable,  so  far  as  each 


THE    ORTHODOX    COMMITTEE.  259 

meeting  answered  for  itself  and  its  ministers,  which 
was  all  they  had  a  right  to  do ;  but  the  answer  from 
Philadelphia  Quarter  contained  an  appendix,  brought 
up  from  Pine  Street  Meeting,  stating,  in  substance, 
that  ministers  coming  among  them,  preached  "  unsound 
doctrines"  or  "doctrines  that  went  to  destroy  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Christian  religion."1  This  gratuitous 
charge,  irregularly  brought  forward,  was  seized  upon 
by  one  of  the  female  ministers  from  England,  who 
had  the  presumption  to  say,  that  if  the  other  Quar- 
terly meetings,  ten  in  number,  had  answered  as  hon- 
estly as  Philadelphia  Quarter,  they  would  have  made 
a  similar  report,  thus  calling  in  question  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  official  reports.  She  was  supported  in  this 
assertion  by  the  other  English  Friends,  as  also  by 
some  of  the  active  members  of  Philadelphia  Quarter, 
and  perhaps  a  few  of  the  orthodox  from  the  country. 
On  this  report  a  proposition  was  founded  to  appoint 
a  committee  to  visit  the  subordinate  meetings  of  min- 
isters and  elders  throughout  the  Yearly  Meeting. 
This  measure  was  urged  by  the  orthodox  party  with 
great  earnestness,  and  as  strenuously  opposed  by  a 
large  number  of  Friends,  principally  from  the  country. 
Jonathan  Evans,  the  clerk,  made  a  minute  in  accord- 
ance with  the  wishes  of  his  party,  which  doubtless  he 
considered  the  weighty  part  of  the  meeting,  and  then, 
"notwithstanding  the  opposition  to  the  measure  was  still 
going  on"  he  took  down  the  names  of  the  following 
committee,  viz.:  Samuel  Bettle,  Wm.  Jackson,  Jona- 
than Evans,  Thomas  Wister,  Hinchman  Haines,  Wil- 
liam Xewbold,  Joseph  "Whitall,  Wm.  Allinson,  Sarah 


1  J.  Comly's  Journal,  p.  317.     Test,  of  A.  Lower,  Foster's  Eep., 
I.  371,  372 ;  and  Test,  of  H.  Jackson,  II.  50. 


260        GENERAL  YEARLY  MEETING. 

Cresson,  Jane  Bettle,  Hannah  vYhitall,  Elizabeth 
Keeve,  Mary  Wister,  Elizabeth  Allinson,  and  Mary 
Morton.  The  whole  committee  were  of  the  orthodox 
party,  several  of  them  were  ministers,  and  they  were 
expected  to  judge  of  the  soundness  of  their  brethren 
and  sisters  in  the  ministry,  and  to  condemn  all  doc- 
trines that  they  deemed  unsound.1  This  party  meas- 
ure, carried  by  disregarding  the  sentiments  of  a  large 
and  valuable  part  of  the  meeting,  was  a  source  of 
deep  grief  and  despondency  to  many  sincere  hearts, 
and  a  sad  prelude  of  coming  events. 

On  Second-day,  the  16th  of  Fourth  month,  the 
General  Yearly  Meeting  assembled  at  Arch  Street 
house ;  Samuel  Bettle  was  at  the  table  as  clerk,  and 
John  Comly  as  his  assistant.  The  usual  business  of 
the  first  sitting  is  to  call  the  names  of  the  representa- 
tives from  the  Quarterly  meetings,  to  read  the  certifi- 
cates of  visitors  in  attendance,  and  of  epistles  from 
other  Yearly  meetings,  and  to  appoint  a  committee 
to  prepare  answers  to  the  epistles. 

While  the  meeting  was  engaged  in  this  preliminary 
business,  a  visit  was  announced  from  Elizabeth  Rob- 
son  of  England,  and  all  proceedings  were  suspended 
while  she  was  en^asred  in  exhortation  almost  an  hour, 
"exciting  to  firmness  as  a  well-disciplined  army."2 

The  meeting  then  proceeded  with  the  business  to 
an  unusually  late  hour.  At  half  past  one,  it  adjourned 
till  four,  and  during  the  interval,  the  representatives 
were  to  meet  in  order  to  nominate  a  clerk  and  assist- 
ant clerk  for  that  year. 

On  calling  over  the  names  of  the  representatives, 

1  Test,  of  A.  Lower  and  II.  Jacksun,  Foster's  Rep.,  I.  371,  and 
II.  51 ;  and  J.  Comly's  Journal,  p.  318. 

2  J.  Cornly's  Journal,  p.  319. 


GENERAL  YEARLY  MEETING.        261 

it  appeared  that  the  number  from  Abington,  Bucks, 
and  the  Southern  Quarter  were  much  larger  than 
usual.1 

The  discipline  provides  that  not  less  than  four  re- 
presentatives shall  be  delegated  by  each  Quarter,  but 
does  not  state  how  many  beyond  that  number  may 
be  appointed.  Philadelphia  Quarter,  prior  to  1827, 
had  sent  three  representatives  from  each  Monthly 
meeting.  Most  of  the  others  had  two  from  each 
Monthly  meeting.2 

There  was  no  violation  of  discipline  in  sending 
more,  but  the  Orthodox  party  charged  their  opponents 
with  increasing  the  number  at  that  time  in  order  to 
effect  a  change  in  the  clerkship.  The  Friends  from 
Abington  and  Bucks  asserted  truly,  that  they  had  not 
previously  sent  their  due  proportion.  The  Southern, 
being  a  much  smaller  Quarter,  had  more  than  its  due 
proportion.  The  whole  number  of  representatives 
was  163,  of  whom  it  is  said  45  were  Orthodox. 

It  appears,  by  the  testimony  of  two  Friends,  who  were 
representatives,  that  soon  after  they  convened,  John 
Comly  was  proposed  as  clerk,  and  Samuel  Bettle  was 
also  named  for  the  same  station.3  A  warm  debate 
ensued  between  the  two  parties,  each  adhering  stren- 
uously to  its  candidate.  Much  the  larger  number 
gave  their  voices  for  John  Comly; — one  of  the  wit- 
nesses estimated  the  majority  in  his  favor  at  two  thirds ; 
—  but  the  orthodox  party  asserted  that  the  weightier 
part  of  the  representatives  were  opposed  to  his  nomi- 
nation.    To  this  it  was   replied,  that  they  had  no 

1  Foster's  Rep.,  Test,  of  Thos.  Evans,  Vol.  I.  pp.  265,  274. 

2  Testimony  of  John  Paul,  Vol.  II.  p.  341. 

3  Foster's  Rep.,  Test,  of  A.  Lower,  I.  372;  Test.  Cephas  Ross, 
II.  4. 

2L2 


262      CONTENTION    RESPECTING    THE    CLERKSHIP. 

means  to  judge  of  the  weight  of  individuals;  but 
they  were  all  representatives  of  Quarterly  meetings, 
and  therefore  stood  on  an  equality. 

Abraham  Lower  proposed  that  those  who  were  in 
favor  of  John  Comly  should  withdraw  to  one  side 
of  the  house.  This  was  strenuously  resisted  by  the 
Orthodox  party,  some  of  whom  protested  that  it  was 
"like  a  political  meeting  to  decide  by  a  majority." 
It  was  proposed  that  a  Friend  should  go  to  the  table 
and  take  down  the  names  of  representatives  who 
were  in  favor  of  John  Comly;  but  those  opposed  to 
his  nomination  declared  they  would  leave  the  house 
if  such  a  measure  were  attempted.  Two  Friends 
went  to  the  table  for  that  purpose,  and  one  of  them 
commenced  writing ;  some  persons  opened  the  door ; 
—  the  yard  was  full  of  people,  and  the  hour  for  meet- 
ing being  nearly  come,  they  rushed  into  the  house. 
In  the  confusion  that  ensued,  no  business  could  be 
transacted.  A  proposition  was  made,  and  assented 
to  by  some,  to  meet  next  morning  at  8  o'clock ;  — 
others,  who  were  of  the  Orthodox  party,  requested 
John  Cox,  a  venerable  and  worthy  minister,  to  report 
that  they  could  not  agree. 

When  the  Yearly  Meeting  assembled  in  the  after- 
noon, Samuel  Bettle,  the  former  clerk,  read  the  open- 
ing minute,  and  John  Cox  reported,  that  the  repre- 
sentatives could  not  agree  in  the  nomination  of  a 
clerk.  An  aged  Friend  said,  he  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  attending  Yearly  meetings  for  sixty  years, 
and  it  was  always  the  practice  to  continue  the  old 
clerks  until  new  ones  could  be  appointed.  This  as- 
sertion, though  literally  true,  was  fallacious  in  its 
application;  for  such  a  case,  we  believe,  had  never 
occurred  till  then,  and  the  practice  of  continuing  the 


JOHN"   comly's   POSITION".  263 

former  clerk  extended  only  to  the  first  sitting.  His 
proposition  was  cordially  united  with  by  the  Ortho- 
dox party,  but  strenuously  opposed  by  a  large  part 
of  the  meeting.  Such  a  scene  of  altercation  and  con- 
fusion  ensued,  as  was  probably  never  before  wit- 
nessed in  a  Friends'  Yearly  Meeting.  Samuel  Bettle, 
being  urged  by  his  friends,  recorded  himself  clerk 
and  John  Comly  assistant,  notwithstanding  the  per- 
sistent opposition  of  many.1 

In  relation  to  his  own  appointment,  John  Comly 
writes  as  follows :  "As  assistant  clerk,  I  was  very  un- 
willing to  resume  my  seat  under  such  circumstances, 
but  it  was  urged  by  several  Orthodox  Friends,  not 
because  of  their  unity  with  my  being  there,  but  be- 
cause there  seemed  no  other  way  than  to  suffer  it  to 
be  so  under  present  circumstances.  After  being  re- 
peatedly solicited  and  hurried  by  them,  I  reluctantly 
yielded  as  a  present  expedient,  for  I  saw  and  felt  the  dis- 
appointment and  dissatisfaction  among  Friends  to  be 
such,  that  a  very  little  spark  would  kindle  to  an  explo- 
sion a  mighty  mass  of  feelings  now  working  in  the 
agitated,  grieved,  and  disgusted  hearts  of  my  brethren. 
Partaking  of  the  sympathy  and  exercise  and  travail 
of  the  oppressed,  I  felt  a  disposition  of  condescen- 
sion, and  sat  at  the  table  during  the  remainder  of 
that  sitting,  though  greatly  to  the  grief  of  many  of 
my  own  dear  friends,  who  considered  my  compliance 
as  a  mark  of  submission  and  acquiescence  with 
orthodox  measures,  that  ought  to  have  been  steadily 
and  firmly  opposed;  and  that  by  thus  yielding  to 
them  I  had  virtually  sanctioned  their  arbitrary  pro- 
ceedings and  weakened  or  tied  my  own  hands."2 

1  Foster's  Rep.,  Test,  of  Halliday  Jackson,  Ab.  Lower,  Cephas 
Ross,  and  Thos.  Evans,  Vol.  I.  265,  372 ;  Vol.  II.  4,  52. 
*  Journal  of  J.  C,  p.  320. 


264  john  comly's  position. 

At  the  close  of  the  sitting,  being  spoken  to  by 
Samuel  Bettle  on  a  charge  of  promoting  a  division 
in  the  Society,  John  Comly  replied,  that  he  had  not 
promoted  a  division,  but  that  a  division  existing  which 
he  had  not  made  nor  promoted,  he  had  seen  that  it 
must  terminate  in  the  separation  of  the  two  parties. 
As  things  were  getting  worse,  and  there  was  no  hope 
of  a  reconciliation,  he  had  endeavored  to  prepare  the 
minds  of  Friends  to  look  toward  such  a  separation 
in  a  quiet  peaceable  manner,  so  as  to  reorganize  the 
Society  of  Friends  on  the  peaceable  principle  of  love 
and  good  will  to  all,  without  contention,  and  this  in- 
formation he  wished  Samuel  Bettle  to  communicate 
to  his  friends.  This  appeared  to  give  satisfaction, 
and  was  doubtless  the  very  course  that  the  Orthodox 
party  wished  him  to  pursue. 

Soon  after  the  meeting  was  opened  on  Third-day 
morning,  John  Comly  rose  and  said  in  substance : 
That  it  had  been  through  condescension  to  a  few 
Friends  that  he  took  his  seat  at  the  table  as  assistant 
clerk  the  preceding  afternoon  ;  but  as  he  did  not  con- 
sider himself  appointed  with  the  unity  of  the  meet- 
ing, he  was  not  easy  to  serve  in  that  capacity  under 
existing  circumstances.  He  then  adverted  to  the 
divided  state  of  the  Society, —  that  there  were  two 
parties  between  whom  love  and  unity  did  not  subsist, 
as  became  the  followers  of  Christ,  or  as  brethren. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  cause  of  this  difference, 
he  deemed  it  then  useless  to  inquire ;  but  their  duty 
was  to  consider  and  feel  after  the  best  measures  to 
restore  harmony.  He  therefore  proposed,  as  the 
Yearly  Meeting  was  evidently  not  qualified  for  the 
transaction  of  its  business,  that  it  should  adjourn 


dr.  parrish's  address.  265 

until  it  could  come  together  in  more  harmony  and 
love. 

He  further  observed,  that  if  the  meeting  should 
not  accede  to  his  proposal,  he  felt  conscientiously 
scrupulous  of  acting  as  its  organ,  inasmuch  as  he  did 
not  consider  himself  appointed  in  the  order  nor  with 
the  unity  of  the  body. 

A  solemn  stillness  pervaded  the  congregation ; 
and  after  a  pause,  Dr.  Joseph  Parrish,  a  Friend  uni- 
versally esteemed  and  beloved,  arose,  and  advancing  in 
the  aisle,  commenced  a  pathetic  appeal  to  the  meeting. 
He  spoke  of  his  ancestry,  as  having  evinced  their 
deep  attachment  to  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  stated 
that  he  and  many  of  his  contemporaries  felt  the  same 
warmth  of  affection  for  it  and  its  principles ;  he  de- 
plored the  unhappy  division  of  sentiment  and  party 
feeling  that  existed  among  them,  and  adverting  to 
the  proposition  then  before  the  meeting,  his  feelings 
were  so  wrought  upon,  that  the  organs  of  utterance 
failed,  and  an  impressive  solemnity  was  spread  over 
the  meeting.1 

Several  Friends  united  with  the  proposed  adjourn- 
ment; others  opposed  it  on  the  ground  of  its  novelty, 
and  because  they  apprehended  it  was  designed  to  dis- 
solve the  Yearly  Meeting.  After  more  than  half  an 
hour  spent  in  its  consideration,  John  Comly  finding 
that  it  could  not  be  carried,  and  that  even  those  whom 
he  considered  the  friends  of  good  order  were  not  pre- 
pared for  it,  withdrew  it.  He  rose  and  said,  he  saw 
his  proposition  was  not  likely  to  be  adopted,  and  as 
the  meeting  would  proceed  with  its  business,  and 
many  Friends  expressed  a  wish  that  he  should  act  as 
assistant  clerk,  he  felt   disposed  to  submit  and  serve 


1  Journal  of  J.  Comly,  323. 
IV— 23 


266  JOHN    COMLY. 

the  meeting,  provided  Tie  were  now  appointed  by  the 
meeting,  and  this  to  be  known  by  the  general  expres- 
sion of  unity.  "  This  submission,"  he  writes,  "  was 
the  result  of  the  change  which  I  saw  and  felt  in  the 
state  of  the  meeting  from  what  it  had  been  before, 
and  when  those  scruples  impressed  my  mind ;  and 
from  the  view  then  opened  of  a  little  narrow  path  in 
which  I  might  be  of  use  to  the  meeting  as  assistant 
clerk,  if  appointed  in  the  general  unity,  which  was 
now  very  largely  expressed  by  very  many  voices."1 

John  Comly  continued  to  act  as  assistant  clerk  till 
the  close  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  very  much  to  the 
regret  of  some  of  his  friends,  who  feared  he  would 
thus  commit  himself  to  measures  he  could  not  ap- 
prove. Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  expediency 
of  his  course,  the  purity  of  his  motives  cannot  be 
doubted.  For  a  long  time  prior  to  the  unhappy  dis- 
sensions then  prevailing,  he  had  been  generally  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  best  and  wisest  men  in  the 
Society.  Calm  and  deliberate  in  his  movements,  he 
was  remarkably  qualified  to  give  judicious  counsel  in 
meetings  for  discipline,  and  in  the  exercise  of  his 
gift  as  a  minister  he  was  clear,  concise,  and  effective, 
a  "workman  that  need  not  be  ashamed,  rightly  di- 
viding the  word  of  truth."  Being  a  lover  of  peace, 
he  seldom  engaged  in  controversy,  and  generally 
acted  upon  the  principle,  that  it  is  better  to  suffer 
than  contend. 

The  chief  objection  to  Samuel  Bettle  as  clerk,  was 
the  ground  he  had  previously  taken,  and  afterwards 
publicly  avowed,  that  he   did   not  consider  any  of 

1  Journal  of  J.  Comly,  pp.  322,  325  ;  and  Test,  of  S.  Bettle  and 
H.  Jackson,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  266,  and  II.  54. 


SAMUEL   BETTLE.  267 

those  who  objected  to  the  proposed  declaration  of 
faith,  as  "  entitled  to  any  weight  or  influence  at  all."1 
As  he  professed  also  to  decide  by  weight, —  not  num- 
bers,—  he  virtually  disfranchised  a  majority  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting,  and  threw  the  whole  power  into 
the  hands  of  his  own  party  —  the  minority.  After 
this  unwarrantable  assumption  of  power,  he  ceased 
to  be  the  servant  of  the  meeting,  and  was  disqualified 
for  the  clerkship.  There  was,  however,  another  ob- 
jection to  his  serving  as  clerk  at  that  time.  The 
subject  of  Leonard  Snowden's  removal  from  the 
eldership  by  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting  had 
been  referred  by  Philadelphia  Quarter  to  the  Yearly 
Meeting  for  its  advice,  and  it  was  thought  that 
Samuel  Bettle  had  taken  so  active  a  part  in  that 
matter  as  to  bias  his  judgment.  From  the  same 
quarter,  an  important  proposition  in  relation  to 
appeals  was  also  brought  up;  and  from  Bucks  and 
Abington  Quarters,  propositions  to  limit  the  terms 
of  appointments  to  the  eldership  and  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings.  And,  moreover,  the  complaint  of  the 
Southern  Quarterly  Meeting  against  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings  was  expected  to  come  before  the  Yearly 
Meeting. 

Some  of  these  propositions  had  come  from  one 
party  and  some  from  the  other ;  it  was  evident  that 
the  meeting  was  not  in  a  condition  to  consider  them 
calmly,  or  to  decide  them  satisfactorily,  and  there- 
fore, by  the  tacit  consent  of  both  parties,  they  were 
not  taken  up,  but  deferred ;  except  the  case  relating 
to  Leonard  Snowclen,  which  was  returned  to  Phila- 
delphia Quarterly  Meeting.2 

1  Testimony  of  S.  Bettle,  Foster's  Report,  I.  82. 
8  Testimony  of  H.  Jackson,  Ibid.  II.  55. 


268  CHAEITABLE    MEASURES. 

There  was  one  measure  in  which  both  parties 
united,  and  it  is  creditable  to  both  that  it  was  an  act 
of  humanity.  It  was  agreed  to  raise  the  sum  of 
three  thousand  dollars  to  assist  the  Yearly  Meeting 
of  North  Carolina  in  removing  from  that  State  a 
large  number  of  colored  people  under  the  care  of 
Friends,  who  had  been  manumitted  and  were  liable, 
if  they  remained,  to  be  again  enslaved.  The  Quar- 
terly meetings  were  requested  to  contribute  their 
several  quotas,  which  they  complied  with,  and  paid 
them  over  to  the  treasurer  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.1 

The  last  act  unitedly  performed  by  the  body  of 
Friends  before  its  separation,  was  to  relieve  freed- 
men  of  African  descent.  Their  interest  in  that  peo- 
ple still  continues, —  and  the  hope  is  fondly  cher- 
ished, that  the  co-operation  and  sympathy  of  the  two 
sections  of  the  Society  in  so  good  a  work  may  yet 
bring  them  nearer  together. 

It  would  have  been  gratifying  to  close  this  sad 
chapter  with  the  recital  of  so  generous  a  deed ;  but 
unhappily  the  Yearly  Meeting,  then  near  its  conclu- 
sion, was  again  agitated  and  convulsed,  through  the 
interference  of  one  of  the  female  ministers  from 
England.2  She  proposed,  and  the  women's  meet- 
ing consented  to  appoint  a  committee  to  visit  the 
Monthly  and  Quarterly  meetings.  A  deputation  of 
two  women  brought  the  proposition  into  the  men's 
meeting  for  its  co-operation.  At  first,  the  meeting 
seemed  not  disposed  to  unite  with  it,  the  clerk  and 
some  of  the  Orthodox  party,  as  well  as  other 
Friends,  expressing  their  judgment  that  the  meeting, 


1  Testimony  of   Thos.   Evans  and  Halliday  Jackson,   Foster's 
Report,  Vol.  I.  267,  and  II.  56. 

2  Testimony  of  A.  Lower  and  H.  Jackson,  Vol.  1. 374,  and  II.  56. 


REORGANIZATION.  269 

at  that  late  period,  was  not  prepared  to  go  into  an 
appointment. 

At  this  juncture,  a  young  man  who  had  been,  the 
evening  previous,  at  Green  Street  meeting-house, 
where  a  conference  of  Friends  was  held,  informed 
the  meeting  of  the  measures  adopted  there  prepara- 
tory to  a  separation.  This  statement  and  disclosure 
drew  out  from  many  an  expression  in  favor  of  having 
a  committee  appointed,  and  some  of  those  who  had 
opposed  it  now  became  its  advocates.  It  was  strenu- 
ously opposed  by  many  Friends,  and  much  excite- 
ment prevailed;  but  the  clerk  proceeded  to  write  a 
minute,  and  those  who  belonged  to  his  party  nomi- 
nated the  whole  committee,  which  was  composed  in 
part  of  the  same  individuals  who  had  been  appointed 
in  the  meeting  of  ministers  and  elders  for  a  similar 
purpose.1  Those  who  were  opposed  to  this  measure 
declined  to  take  any  part  in  it,  but  they  remained  in 
the  meeting  till  the  closing  minute  was  read,  to  meet 
again  "  at  the  usual  time  next  year,  if  the  Lord 
permit.' 


"2 


CHAPTER   XV. 


REORGANIZATION  OF  PHILADELPHIA  YEARLY 

MEETING. 

After   enduring  for  several  years   the   sorrowful 
effects  produced  by  the  divided -and  distracted  con- 

1  Testimony  of  H.  Jackson,  Foster's   Report,  II.  56 ;   and  J. 
Comly's  Journal,  p.  331. 

2  Testimony  of  Thomas  Evans,  Foster's  Report,  I.  268. 

23*  IV  —  2  M 


270  THE  meeting's  address. 

dition  of  the  Society,  many  valuable  Friends,  who 
loved  peace  and  abhorred  contention,  became  pre- 
pared, though  reluctantly,  to  acquiesce  in  the  neces- 
sity of  a  separation.  Events  that  transpired  in  the 
early  part  of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting,  in  1827, 
confirmed  the  impression,  that  a  party,  who  were  un- 
questionably a  minority  of  the  body,  were  determined 
to  bear  rule  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  notwithstanding 
the  entreaties  and  remonstrances  of  their  brethren. 
The  course  pursued  by  the  clerk  of  the  Select  Meet- 
ing, and  those  who  acted  with  him, — and  the  impo- 
sition of  a  clerk  upon  the  General  Yearly  Meeting  by 
the  same  party,  in  opposition  to  the  greater  part  of 
the  body, — increased  the  dissatisfaction  already  pre- 
vailing, and  brought  on  the  crisis. 

On  Fourth-day  evening,  the  18th  of  the  4th  month, 
being  the  third  day  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  a  number 
of  Friends,  perhaps  fifteen  or  twenty,  met  together  at 
a  private  house,  and  took  into  consideration  the  state 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting  and  the  Society  at  large.  A 
few  Friends  were  then  nominated  to  prepare  an  ad- 
dress, and  a  meeting  for  conference  was  appointed  to 
be  held  the  next  evening  at  Green  Street  meeting- 
house.1 

On  Fifth-day  evening,  a  large  number  accordingly 
assembled ;  the  essay  of  an  address  was  produced,  and 
after  some  time  spent  in  its  consideration,  they  ad- 
journed to  the  following  evening. 

On  Sixth-day  evening,  the  20th,  they  resumed  the 
consideration  of  the  address,  and  after  some  altera- 
tions it  was  unanimously  adopted.  They  then  ad- 
journed to  meet  again  on  the  morrow. 

1  Test,  of  II.  Jackson,  Foster's  Hep.,  II.  59. 


THE  meeting's  addkess.  271 

After  the  conclusion  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  on 
Seventh-day,  the  conference  of  Friends  again  assem- 
bled at  Green  Street  meeting-house.  The  essay  of 
an  address  being  again  read  and  weightily  considered, 
it  was  agreed  that  it  be  signed  on  behalf  of  the  meet- 
ing,  and  a  suitable  number  of  copies  printed  for 
distribution. 

The  address,  after  adverting  to  the  love  and  har- 
mony that  had  formerly  prevailed  in  the  Society,  and 
the  religious  liberty  Friends  had  asserted  and  enjoyed, 
proceeds  as  follows:  "With  this  great  object  in  view, 
our  attention  has  been  turned  to  the  present  condition 
of  this  Yearly  Meeting  and  its  different  branches ;  and 
by  evidence  on  every  hand,  we  are  constrained  to 
declare  that  the  unity  of  this  body  is  interrupted,  — 
that  a  division  exists  among  us,  developing  in  its  pro- 
gress views  which  appear  incompatible  with  each 
other,  and  feelings  averse  to  a  reconciliation.  Doc- 
trines held  by  one  part  of  the  Society,  and  which  we 
believe  to  be  sound  and  edifying,  are  pronounced  by 
the  other  part  to  be  unsound  and  spurious.  From  this 
has  resulted  a  state  of  things  that  has  proved  destructive 
of  peace  and  tranquillity,  and  in  which  the  fruits  of  love 
and  condescension  have  been  blasted,  and  the  com- 
forts and  enjoyments  even  of  social  intercourse  greatly 
diminished.  Measures  have  been  pursued  which  we 
deem  oppressive,  and  in  their  nature  and  tendency 
calculated  to  undermine  and  destroy  those  benefits,  to 
establish  and  perpetuate  which  should  be  the  purpose 
of  every  religious  association."  *   *  *  * 

"It  is  under  a  solemn  and  deliberate  view  of  this 
painful  state  of  our  affairs,  that  we  feel  bound  to  ex- 
press to  you,  under  a  settled  conviction  of  mind,  that 
the  period  has  fully  come  in  which  we  ought  to  look 


272  A    DIVISION    PROPOSED. 

toward  making  a  quiet  retreat  from  this  scene  of  con- 
fusion, and  we  therefore  recommend  to  you  deeply  to 
weigh  the  momentous  subject,  and  to  adopt  such  a 
course  as  Truth,  under  solid  and  solemn  deliberation, 
may  point  to,  in  furtherance  of  this  object,  that  our 
Society  may  again  enjoy  the  free  exercise  of  its  rights 
and  privileges.  Arid  we  think  proper  to  remind  you 
that  we  have  no  new  gospel  to  preach,  nor  any  other 
foundation  to  lay  than  that  already  laid,  and  pro- 
claimed by  our  forefathers,  even  '  Christ  within,  the 
hope  of  glory,'  —  *  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom 
of  God.'  Neither  have  we  any  other  system  of  disci- 
pline to  propose  than  that  which  we  already  possess; 
believing  that  whilst  we  sincerely  endeavour  to  live 
and  walk  consistently  with  our  holy  profession,  and 
to  administer  it  in  the  spirit  of  forbearance  and  love, 
it  will  be  found  sufficient  for  the  government  of  the 
Church." ■   *  *  *  * 

"Having  experienced,  in  the  several  sittings  of  this 
conference,  a  comfortable  evidence  of  divine  regard, 
imparting  strength  and  encouragement  to  iook  for- 
ward to  another  friendly  meeting  together,  this  meet- 
ing agrees  to  adjourn  to  the  first  Second-day  in  the 
6th  month  next,  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning,  at 
Green  Street  meeting-house,  Philadelphia,  if  the  Lord 
permit." 

In  the  Fifth  month,  1827,  the  committee  appointed 
six  months  before  reported  to  Philadelphia  Quarterly 

1  The  address  was  signed  on  behalf  of  the  meeting  by  — 

John  Comly,  Joshua  Lippincott, 

Robert  Moore,  John  Hunt, 

William  Mode,  Stephen  Stephens, 

Richard  Barnard,  Joseph  G.  Rowland, 

John  Watson,  (Buckingham,)      William  Wharton. 


RULE    OF    DISCIPLINE.  273 

Meeting  a  proposition  to  lay  down  Green  Street 
Monthly  Meeting,  and  transfer  the  members  to  the 
Monthly  Meeting  of  the  Northern  District.  This  pro- 
position, made  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the 
members  to  be  thus  transferred,  was,  through  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Orthodox  party,  recorded  as  adopted  by 
the  Quarterly  Meeting. 

But  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting,  anticipating 
this  movement,  had,  the  month  previous,  concluded 
to  dissolve  its  connection  with  Philadelphia  Quarter, 
and  had  given  notice  to  that  meeting  before  the  con- 
summation of  the  measure. 

The  Quarterly  Meeting  attempted  to  justify  its  pro- 
ceedings by  the  following  rule  of  discipline:  "It  is 
agreed  that  no  Quarterly  meeting  be  set  up  or  laid  down 
without  the  consent  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  no  Monthly 
meeting  without  the  consent  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting; 
nor  any  Preparative  or  other  meeting  for  business  or  wor- 
ship, till  application  to  the  Monthly  Meeting  is  first 
made,  and  when  there  approved,  the  consent  of  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting  be  also  obtained."  The  Friends  of  Green 
Street  maintained,  that,  according  to  this  rule,  "a 
Quarterly  meeting  has  no  other  power  than  to  confirm 
or  prevent  the  setting  up  or  laying  down  of  a  Monthly 
meeting.  It  is  also  clear  that  a  Quarterly  meeting 
cannot  lay  down  a  '  Preparative  or  other  meeting  for 
business  or  worship,  till  application  to  the  Monthly 
Meeting  is  first  made,  and  ivhen  there  approved,  the 
consent  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  be  also  obtained.' 
The  terms,  other  meeting  for  business,  in  the  clause, 
must  include  a  Monthly  meeting."  *  *  *  *  "The 
absurdity  of  the  application  of  the  rule,  as  construed 
by  the  Quarterly  Meeting,  becomes  evident  when 
applied  to  the  setting  up  of  a  Monthly  meeting,  with- 

2M2 


274  TRANSFER    OF    MEMBERSHIP. 

out  the  consent  of  the  parties  who  are  to  compose 
such  meeting,  —  the  same  principle  clearly  applying 
in  both  cases." 

In  the  same  month,  application  was  made  by  Green 
Street  Monthly  Meeting  to  be  received  as  a  branch 
of  Abington  Quarterly  Meeting;  and  there  being  "a 
full  and  decided  expression  "  in  favor  of  it,  that  meet- 
ing agreed  to  the  proposition,  and  sent  down  to  the 
Monthly  Meeting  a  minute  of  acceptance.1 

In  like  manner,  Radnor  Monthly  Meeting  withdrew 
from  Philadelphia  Quarter,  and  was  received  as  a  con- 
stituent part  of  Abington  Quarter;  and  Mount  Holly 
Monthly  Meeting  detached  itself  from  Burlington 
Quarter,  to  become  a  branch  of  Bucks  Quarterly 
Meeting. 

In  these  cases,  the  orthodox  committee  appointed 
at  the  last  sitting  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  were  in  at- 
tendance, and  remonstrated  without  effect.2  There 
were,  doubtless,  some  orthodox  members  in  all  the 
meetings  who  objected,  but  they  were  so  few  in  num- 
ber that  the  "prevailing  sense  of  the  meetings  "  in  favor 
of  the  proceedings  could  not  be  mistaken  or  denied. 

A  large  number  of  Friends  from  four  of  the 
Monthly  meetings  of  Philadelphia  applied  to  be  re- 
ceived as  members  of  Byberry  and  Darby  Monthly 
meetings,  and  were  admitted  without  bringing  cer- 
tificates, which  it  was  well  known  would  have  been 
denied  them  by  the  Orthodox  party,  who  had  already 
commenced  proceedings  against  some  of  them.  By- 
berry  and  Darby  Monthly  meetings  then  instituted 
each  a  meeting  for  worship  in  the  city,  and  Abing- 

1  Statement  of  Facts,  Foster's  Report,  II.  450. 

2  Test,  of  Jos.  Whitall  and  T.  Evans,  Foster's  Rep.,  Vol.  I.  pp. 
222,  270. 


TRANSFER    OF    MEMBERSHIP.  275 

ton  Quarterly  Meeting  established  there  a  meeting 
for  discipline,  called  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends 
of  Philadelphia.1  To  this  Monthly  Meeting,  as  well 
as  to  that  of  Green  Street,  persons  living  in  the  city, 
and  known  to  be  in  membership  with  Friends,  were 
admitted  as  members,  or  allowed  to  transfer  their 
rights  without  certificates. 

These  measures,  preliminary  to  the  reorganization 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  were  designed  to  forestall  the 
action  of  the  Orthodox  party,  who  intended  to  dis- 
own all  that  participated  in  that  movement.  In 
Philadelphia  Quarter  they  had  already  begun  their 
disciplinary  proceedings  for  this  purpose,  but  were 
frustrated  by  the  Friends  taking  shelter  under  the 
wings  of  other  Quarterly  meetings,  after  which  their 
papers  of  disownment  were  disregarded. 

The  transfer  of  membership  without  a  certificate, 
and  the  action  of  the  Monthly  and  Quarterly  meet- 
ings in  that  emergency,  were  not  in  accordance  with 
the  letter  of  discipline,  but  arose  from  the  necessity 
of  the  case.  The  Friends  concerned  in  those  extraor- 
dinary proceedings  believed  that  the  compact  had 
been  broken  by  the  substitution  of  arbitrary  power 
for  the  spirit  of  love ;  they  saw  no  way  to  regain 
their  religious  rights  but  by  a  reorganization,  and  for 
such  an  exigency  the  rules  of  discipline  did  not  and 
could  not  provide. 

In  pursuance  of  its  adjournment,  the  General 
Meeting  of  Friends  again  met  in  conference  at 
Green  Street  meeting-house,  Philadelphia,  on  the 
4th   and   5th   days  of  the   Sixth   month,  1827,  and 

1  Testimony  of  Thomas  Evans,  Foster's  Report,  I.  270 ;  and 
Testimony  of  H.  Jackson,  II.  p.  151. 


276  YEA.KLY    MEETING    IN    TENTH    MONTH. 

adopted  an  epistle  addressed,  "  To  Friends  of  the 
Quarterly  and  Monthly  Meetings  within  the  compass 
of  the  Yearly  Meeting  held  in  Philadelphia." 

In  accordance  with  the  recommendation  of  the 
conference,  the  Quarterly  meetings  of  Abiugton, 
Bucks,  and  Concord,  also  the  "Western  and  Southern 
Quarters,  appointed  representatives  to  attend  the 
Yearly  Meeting  to  be  held  in  the  Tenth  month.  In 
the  Southern  Quarterly  Meeting,  little  or  no  opposi- 
tion was  made,  its  members  being  generally  united 
in  sentiment.  In  the  other  four  Quarters,  the  ortho- 
dox party  made  opposition,  but  being  greatly  in  the 
minority,  they  separated  from,  the  main  body  and  set 
up  meetings  of  their  own,  leaving  Friends  in  posses- 
sion of  the  meeting-houses. 

On  the  15th  of  Tenth  month,  182T,  the  Yearly 
Meeting  assembled.  The  men  occupied  a  large  tem- 
porary building  erected  for  the  occasion ;  the  women 
met  in  Green  Street  meeting-house.  "It  was  esti- 
mated that  nearly  fifteen  hundred  men  Friends  were 
in  attendance,  and  a  sensible  solemnity  and  tender 
feeling  being  experienced,  the  meeting  appeared  to 
be  owned  by  the  Head  of  the  Church."1 

Representatives  were  present  from  Abington, 
Bucks,  Concord,  the  Western  and  Southern  Quar- 
terly meetings,  and  also  from  Mount  Holly,  Chester- 
field, and  Radnor  Monthly  meetings. 

A  committee  appointed  at  the  General  Meeting 
held  in  the  Sixth  month,  to  attend  to  the  state  of  the 


1  Cockburn's  Review,  225.  Halliday  Jackson  testified :  "  I 
think  it  was  estimated  that  there  were  more  than  twenty-five 
hundred  including  both  sexes  ;  some  thought  near  three  thousand 
attended  at  some  of  the  sittings."     Foster,  Vol.  II.  p.  61 


CONCLUDING    MINUTE.  277 

Society  and  afford  assistance  to  Friends  under  suffer- 
ing, reported  attention  to  the  service. 

A  large  committee  of  men  and  women  Friends 
was  appointed  to  represent  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  its 
recess,  and  attend  to  the  important  concerns  which 
claimed  the  attention  of  the  body.  It  was  unani- 
mously recommended  that  the  ministers  and  elders 
present  should  meet  in  a  yearly-meeting  capacity  on 
the  next  morning,  and  sit  as  heretofore  on  its  own 
adjournments. 

A  committee  appointed  to  draught  an  address  to 
Friends  within  the  compass  of  the  Yearly  Meeting, 
produced  one,  which  was  adopted  and  10,000  copies 
directed  to  be  printed  aud  distributed  to  the  Quar- 
terly and  Monthly  meetings.  An  epistle  to  Balti- 
more Yearly  Meeting  was  also  deliberately  consid- 
ered and  adopted. 

On  the  19th  of  the  month,  the  concluding  minute 
was  read,  as  follows  : 

"  Having  been  favoured,  through  the  unmerited 
mercy  of  the  Head  of  the  Church,  to  witness  in  the 
several  sittings  of  this  meeting  the  baptizing  influ- 
ence of  his  own  blessed  Spirit  cementing  us  together 
in  the  bond  of  gospel  love,  and  enabling  us  to  con- 
duct the  weighty  affairs  of  the  church  in  much  broth- 
erly affection  and  harmony,  and  feeling  grateful  for 
the  favour,  the  meeting  concludes  to  meet  again  on 
the  second  Second-clay  of  the  Fourth  month  next,  if 
the  Lord  permit.  Benjamin  Ferris,  Clerk" 

From  the  epistle  addressed  "  To  the  Quarterly, 
Monthly,  and  Particular  Meetings  of  Friends," 
within  the  compass  of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, the  following  passages  are  selected : — "  Our  pro- 
fession is  high  and  holy ;  and  let  us  be  increasingly 

24 


278         EPISTLE    TO    THE    VAKIOUS    MEETINGS. 

concerned  to  walk  consistently  therewith.  The  pa- 
tient sufferings  of  our  faithful  predecessors  finally 
established  for  them  an  excellent  name,  even 
amongst  their  persecutors.  They  held  up  with  prac- 
tical clearness  a  peaceable  testimony  against  '  wars 
and  fightings,'  and  by  a  scrupulous  adherence  to  the 
principles  of  justice,  became  proverbial  for  integrity. 
In  the  present  afflicting  state  of  things,  we  feel  deeply 
concerned  that  their  example  in  these  respects  may 
be  kept  steadily  in  view, — that  our  religious  testi- 
monies may  never  be  wounded  by  contending  for 
property  and  asserting  our  rights;  —  that  no  course 
be  pursued,  although  sanctioned  by  the  laws  of  the 
excellent  government  under  which  we  live,  that  may 
be  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  that  holy  Lawgiver 
who  taught  his  disciples,  *  If  any  man  will  sue  thee 
at  the  law  and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy 
cloak  also ; '  and  who  set  forth  his  own  situation  as  it 
related  to  this  world  when  he  said,  '  The  foxes  have 
holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the 
Son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head.' 

"And  we  tenderly  exhort,  that  in  places  where  our 
numbers  constitute  the  larger  part  of  any  meeting, 
their  conduct  may  be  regulated  by  the  rule  laid  down 
by  our  blessed  Lord:  'Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.'  The  dis- 
cipline under  which  we  act  positively  discourages 
members  of  our  Society  from  suing  each  other  at 
law.  To  violate  this  discipline  in  a  meeting  capa- 
city, is  not  only  a  departure  from  our  established  or 
der,  but  is  calculated  to  injure  us  in  the  eyes  of  sober 
inquirers  after  truth,  and  to  disturb  the  peace  of  our 
own  minds." 

A  separation  took  place  in  the  other   Quarterly 


THE    REORGANIZED   YEARLY    MEETING.        279 

meetings  of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  in  the  fol- 
lowing order:  at  Salem,  Burlington,  and  Cain,  in 
the  Eleventh  month  ;  at  Haddonh'eld,  in  the  Twelfth 
month ;  and  at  Shrewsbury  and  Eahway,  in  the  Sec- 
ond month  following.1  As  the  Orthodox  party  in 
most  of  the  Quarterly  and  Monthly  meetings  were 
much  the  smaller  number,  they  usually  effected  a 
separation  by  remaining  in  the  meeting-house  after 
the  minute  of  adjournment  was  read ;  and  then  ap- 
pointing a  clerk,  they  proceeded  to  business,  or  ad- 
journed to  another  time  and  place.  In  most  places, 
on  account  of  the  smallness  of  their  numbers,  they 
procured  other  houses  to  hold  their  meetings;  but  in 
some  instances  both  sections  continued,  for  a  time, 
to  use  the  same  meeting-house,  separated  on  First- 
days  by  a  partition,  and  holding  their  mid-week 
meetings  on  different  days.  At  Burlington  and 
some  other  places,  the  Orthodox -section  being  much 
the  larger,  retained  the  meeting-houses. 

It  was  a  time  of  deep  distress  to  many  sincere 
Friends  in  both  sections.  Members  of  the  same 
family  were  often  divided  in  sentiment  and  attended 
different  meetings;  old  associations  and  tender  friend- 
ships were  severed,  and  not  unfrequently,  acrimo- 
nious feelings  were  too  much  indulged. 

In  the  Spring  of  1828,  the  reorganized  Yearly 
Meeting  again  assembled,  and  representatives  were 
present  from  all  the  Quarters  except  Philadelphia. 
The  Monthly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  that  of 
Green  Street,  having  been  attached  to  Abington 
Quarter,  were  represented  through  it,  and  a  large 
number  of  Friends  residing  in  the  city  were  in  at- 
tendance. 

1  Testimony  of  Joseph  Whitall,  Foster's  Report,  I.  224. 


280  EPISTLE    TO    Y.    M.    OF    LONDON". 

An  epistle  addressed  to  the  meeting  by  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Friends  held  in  Baltimore  was  received  and 
read,  and  its  lively,  pertinent  contents  were  truly  con- 
solatory and  acceptable.  On  entering  upon  the  con- 
sideration of  the  state  of  the  Society  as  exhibited  in 
the  answers  to  the  queries,  the  meeting  was  brought 
under  a  deep  concern  and  exercise  for  the  removal 
of  existing  weaknesses  and  for  the  promotion  of  the 
cause  of  truth  and  righteousness. 

In  accordance  with  a  proposition  from  Abington 
Quarter,  it  was  agreed  to  establish  a  Quarterly  Meet- 
ing, to  be  composed  of  Radnor,  Green  Street,  and  Phi- 
ladelphia Monthly  meetings,  to  be  denominated  " Phi- 
ladelphia Quarterly  Meeting  of  Friends."  A  Quar- 
terly meeting  of  ministers  and  elders  was  connected 
with  it,  as  prescribed  in  the  rules  of  discipline. 

A  committee  was  appointed  to  represent  the  Yearly 
Meeting  during  its  recess,  and  hence  called  the  Re- 
presentative Committee.  Its  functions  are  the  same 
as  those  formerly  delegated  to  the  Meeting  for  Suf- 
ferings ;  it  reports  to  the  Yearly  Meeting,  and  is  re- 
appointed every  year. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  continued  its  sittings  from 
the  14th  to  the  18th  of  the  Fourth  month,  conduct- 
ing its  business  in  harmony  and  brotherly  love.  It 
addressed  epistles  to  the  other  Yearly  meetings  of 
Friends  on  this  continent  and  in  England.  From 
that  addressed  to  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  London  the 
following  passage  is  selected : — 

"For  a  long  course  of  years,  through  the  prevailing 
influence  of  Christian  love,  Friends  had  been  enabled 
to  stand  a  united  body  and  prosecute  their  religious 
concerns  in  harmony  and  mutual  condescension. 
From  a  variety  of  causes,  originating,  as  we  believe, 


THE    ORTHODOX    SECTION.  281 

in    unfaithfulness   to   the    clear   discoveries   of  that 
heavenly  light  which  eminently  dawned  on  our  So- 
ciety in  the  beginning,  this  blessed  harmony  has  been 
interrupted.    In  this  part  of  the  vineyard,  that  divine 
charity  which  stands  pre-eminent  among  the  fruits 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  very  much  lost,  and  a  spirit 
of  judgment  out  of  the  truth  usurped  its  place,  pro- 
ducing divisions  and  contentions  not  only  destructive- 
to  the  peace  of  the  Church,  but  subversive  of  its  order 
and  discipline.     In  this  very  afflictive  state  of  society, 
its  deeply  exercised  members  appealing  from  the  par- 
tial tribunal  of  human  decision  to  the  merciful  seat 
of  divine  judgment,  where  purity  of  motive  always 
finds  acceptance,  and  bowing  in  awfulness  and  hu- 
mility before  Him  who  has  promised  to  lead  his  de- 
voted children  in  'paths  that  they  have  not  known,' 
they  were  favored  to  discover  a  way  cast  up  for  their 
deliverance.     It  is  with  unfeigned  gratitude  to  the 
God  of  all  our  sure  mercies  we  are  bound  to  acknowl- 
edge that  he  has  not  only  opened  the  way,  but  led  us 
on  step  by  step,  and  endued  us  with  power  to  advance 
therein,  until  he  has  brought  us,  as  a  people,  into  the 
possession  of  love,  and  harmony,  and  peace." 

The  spirit  of  brotherly  love  which  pervades  this 
epistle  was  manifested  in  the  action  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting  towards  the  orthodox  party.  No  measures 
were  taken  with  a  view  to  their  disownment,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  they  were  left  at  liberty  to  come  into 
fellowship  with  Friends  without  being  dealt  with  as 
offenders. 

At  the  usual  time  in  the  Fourth  month,  1828,  the 
Orthodox  section  held  their  Yearly  Meeting  at  Arch 
Street  house,  Philadelphia.  They  took  measures  to 
render  the  separation  complete,  by  initiating  a  course 

24*  2N 


282  THE    ORTHODOX    SECTION". 

of  disciplinary  proceedings  to  lay  down  meetings  and 
disown  members  wherever  their  authority  was  not 
recognized.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  Southern  Quar- 
terly Meeting  was  declared  to  be  laid  down,  with  all 
its  monthly  meetings,  and  the  members,  by  the  same 
summary  process,  were  said  to  be  attached  to  another 
Quarterly  meeting,  without  any  of  the  usual  care 
being  bestowed  upon  them.1 

In  other  Quarterly  meetings,  a  minority  of  the 
members  —  often  a  very  small  fragment  —  was  made 
to  assume  the  functions  of  the  whole  body,  — laying 
down  Monthly  meetings,  and  attaching  the  members, 
without  their  knowledge  or  consent,  to  other  meet- 
ings. 

The  beneficent  design  of  the  Discipline  in  dealing 
with  offenders  for  their  own  good,  in  order  to  reclaim 
them,  was  entirely  ignored,  and  the  purpose  of  cut- 
ting off  from  membership  seemed  to  be  the  only  end 
kept  in  view.  In  the  same  spirit  of  crimination,  a 
"Declaration"  was  issued  by  the  orthodox  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  replete  with  grave  accusa- 
tions against  the  other  section  of  the  Society,  with  the 
obvious  intention  of  prejudicing  the  public  against 
them,  and  placing  them  without  the  pale  of  Christian 
charity.  This  defamatory  publication  has  been  an- 
swered, and  its  charges  refuted,  in  a  "Review"  by 
"William  Gibbons,  published  at  Philadelphia,  in 
1847. 

In  the  8th  month,  1828,  Philadelphia  Quarterly 
Meeting  was  opened  at  Cheery  Street  meeting-house. 
It  was  then  composed  of  Radnor,  Green  Street,  and 

1  Test,  of  J.  Whitall,  an  Orthodox  witness.  "  Ques.  Was  the 
Southern  Quarterly  Meeting  ever  labored  with,  before  it  was  lai(? 
down.     Ans.  I  believe  not."     Foster's  Rep.,  Vol.  I.  p.  259. 


THE   REORGANIZATION   ACCOMPLISHED.        283 

Philadelphia  Monthly  meetings,  and  a  few  months 
subsequently  the  Monthly  Meeting  held  at  Roaring 
Creek  was  annexed  to  it. 

The  reorganization  of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meet- 
ing being  thus  accomplished,  it  may  not  be  inappro- 
priate to  consider  the  grounds  on  which  the  measure 
was  justified  by  its  authors.  It  has  been  shown  in 
the  preceding  narrative  that  discord  prevailed  to  such 
a  degree  as  to  destroy  the  objects  of  religious  asso- 
ciation, and  even  to  impair  the  harmony  of  social  . 
intercourse.  A  division  existed,  and  a  separation 
appeared  inevitable ;  but  was  the  method  adopted 
the  best  that  could  have  been  pursued  ? 

It  has  been  asserted,  that,  had  the  majority  of  the 
representatives,  in  1827,  signed  a  report  nominating 
another  clerk,  the  Yearly  Meeting  must  have  acceded 
to  it,  or  the  minority  would  have  retired  and  set  up 
another  meeting,  thus  leaving  the  larger  body  in  pos- 
session of  the  house.  It  appears  that  this  course  was 
proposed  and  attempted,  but  was  frustrated  by  delay 
and  indecision. 

Again,  it  has  been  supposed,  that,  had  John  Comly, 
at  the  time  he  declined  to  act  as  assistant  clerk,  pro- 
posed to  withdraw  and  set  the  example,  two  thirds  of 
the  Yearly  Meeting  would  have  gone  with  him. 
This  supposition  may  be  correct,  but  much  disorder 
would  have  ensued,  and  the  result  would  not  have 
been  more  favorable  than  that  which  arose  from  the 
course  adopted. 

The  plan  proposed  by  John  Comly  and  carried 
into  effect,  was  doubtless  based  upon  the  idea,  that, 
the  Yearly  Meeting  having  been  originally  organized 
by  representatives  from  Monthly  or  Quarterly  meet- 
ings, with  other  members  in  attendance,   it  could, 


284  PENNSYLVANIA    AND   NEW    JEESEY. 

without  a  departure  from  Friends'  principles,  be  re- 
organized by  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the  con- 
stituent meetings. 

It  appears,  by  the  earliest  historical  account  of 
Friends'  meetings  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey, 
that  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Burlington,  held  the  2d 
day  of  the  Third  month,  1681,  "  concluding  that  a 
Yearly  Meeting  might  have  a  general  service,  unani- 
mously agreed  to  establish  one  in  Burlington,  the 
first  of  which  was  to  begin  the  28th  of  the  Sixth 
month  following;  of  which  notice  was  given,  and 
they  accordingly  met  at  the  house  of  Thomas  Gar- 
diner. On  the  31st  they  proceeded  to  regulate  such 
business  in  the  Society  as  was  then  necessary,  partic- 
ularly in  appointing  the  times  and  places,  when  and 
where  the  different  meetings  for  business  throughout 
the  country  were  to  be  thereafter  held,  among  which 
a  general  one  for  worship  was  established  to  be  held 
yearly  at  Salem  on  the  2d  First-day  of  the  Second 
month.  Having  settled  these  and  other  matters,  they 
adjourned  to  the  6th  of  the  Seventh  month  in  the 
succeeding  year,  then  to  meet  at  the  same  place."1 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey.  At  the  time  it  was 
instituted,  there  were  but  three  Monthly  meetings  in 
New  Jersey,  viz.,  Shrewsbury,  established  in  1670; 
Salem,  in  1676  ;  and  Burlington,  in  1678. 

It  appears  by  the  same  authority,  that,  about  the 
year  1680,  the  Friends  at  Burlington  established  "a 
Quarterly  Meeting  among  themselves,"  and  that 
Shrewsbury  Monthly  Meeting  was  attached  to  it  in 
1682. 

At  the  time  the  Yearly  Meeting  was  instituted  at 

1  Smith's  History.     Hazard's  Register,  Vol.  VI.  p.  184. 


STRENGTH    OF   THE   TWO    PARTIES.  285 

Burlington,  there  were  Yearly  meetings  in  Rhode 
Island  and  Maryland  which  had  been  in  existence 
some  years,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  with 
these  a  correspondence  was  opened,  but  there  is  no 
evidence  that  their  consent  or  assistance  was  deemed 
requisite  to  the  establishment  of  the  new  Yearly 
Meeting. 

In  like  manner,  when  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meet- 
ing was  reorganized  by  the  action  of  Quarterly  and 
Monthly  meetings  within  its  limits,  the  neighboring 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Baltimore,  then  undivided,  opened 
a  correspondence  with  it,  and  in  the  following  year 
the  Yearly  Meeting  of  New  York  gave  it  the  same 
evidence  of  religious  fellowship. 

Soon  after  the  separation,  measures  were  taken  to 
ascertain  the  relative  numbers  of  the  two  parties,  and 
the  following  census,  "  so  far  as  ascertained  up  to  the 
year  1829,"  was  produced  and  vouched  for  in  the  tes- 
timony of  Halliday  Jackson.1 

1.  Philadelphia  Quarterly  Meeting.  total. 

Number  of  Friends,  including  men,  women, 

and  minors,  ......     2676 

Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  including 

men,  women,  and  minors,    ....     2643 

Number  of  Neutrals,  or  those  undecided,        .        14 


2.  Abington  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  including  men,  women, 

and  minors, 2829 

Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  including 

men,  women,  and  minors 321 

Number  of  Neutrals,  or  undecided,         .         .  3 


5333 


3153 


Carried  over,  8486 


1  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  II.  p.  461. 

2N2 


286 


STRENGTH    OF   THE   TWO   PARTIES. 


Brought  forward 

3.  Bucks  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  men,  wo- 
men, and  minors,         .... 
Number  of  Neutrals,  or  undecided, 

4.  Concord  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  men,  wo 

men,  and  minors,         .... 
Number  of  Neutrals,  or  undecided, 

5.  Western  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  men,  wo 

men,  and  minors,         .... 
Number  of  Neutrals,  or  undecided, 

6.  Caln  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  men,  wo 

men,  and  minors,         .... 
Number  of  Neutrals,  or  undecided, 


total, 
8486 


2831 

489 
16 

2573 

788 
75 

2296 

454 
70 

921 

557 
175 


The  numbers  in  the  following  Quarterly  meet- 
ings were  ascertained  under  commissions  issued 
from  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  for 
Eastern  District. 

7.  Southern  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors,       501 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  men,  wo- 
men, and  minors,         .....         30 


8.  Burlington  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors,     1049 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  .        .       800 


3336 


3436 


2820 


1653 


531 


1S49 


Carried  over, 


22,111 


STRENGTH    OF    THE    TWO    PARTIES.  287 

TOTAL. 

Brought  forward,  22,111 

Haddonfield  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors,       821 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  men,  wo- 
men, and  minors,         .....       789 

Number  of  Neutrals,  or  undecided,         .        .        76 

1686 


10.  Salem  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors,     1238 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  men,  wo- 
men, and  minors, 298 


11.  Shrewsbury  and  Rahway  Quarterly  Meeting. 

Number  of  Friends,  men,  women,  and  minors,       750 
Number  of  those  called  Orthodox,  men,  wo- 
men, and  minors, 175 


1536 


925 


Total,  26,258 


Aggregate  of  Friends,  as  far  as  ascertained,  within 

the  Yearly  Meeting,  up  to.  1829,  .  .  .  .18,485 
Aggregate  of  those  called  Orthodox,  to  same  period,  7,344 
Aggregate  of  Neutrals,  or  undecided,  "  429 

Total,  26,258 

In  21  Monthly  meetings  in  Pennsylvania  the  num- 
bers were  taken  as  both  parties  stood  at  the  division. 

It  is  proper  to  observe  that  this  census  differs  some- 
what from  a  statement  furnished  by  Thomas  Evans,  an 
Orthodox  witness,  in  relation  to  six  of  the  Quarterly 
meetings,  viz.,  Philadelphia,  Cain,  Burlington,  Haddon- 
field,  Salem,  and  Shrewsbury  and  Rahway.1  Accord- 
ing to  his  statement,  those  whom  he  calls  "  Hicksites," 
in  these  six  Quarters,  numbered  6123,  being  1332  less 
than  the  census,  and  the  Orthodox  numbered  7241, 
being  1979  more  than  the  census.    As  there  were  but 

1  Foster's  Report,  II.  495. 


288  FURTHER    SEPARATIONS. 

few  of  the  Orthodox  party  in  the  other  five  Quarters, 
they  did  not  deem  it  expedient  to  offer  any  statement 
of  their  number.  If  the  statement  of  Thomas  Evans 
were  substituted,  as  far  as  it  goes,  for  that  of  Halliday 
Jackson,  the  result  would  be,  in  the  whole  Yearly 
Meeting,  17,153  Friends,  and  9323  orthodox  Friends. 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

SEPARATIONS   IN    NEW   YORK,    OHIO,  INDIANA,  AND 
BALTIMORE  YEARLY  MEETINGS. 

The  elements  of  discord,  which  led  to  the  separation 
in  Philadelphia,  existed  to  some  extent  in  other 
Yearly  meetings,  and  the  intimate  relations  they 
maintained  with  each  other  could  not  fail  to  bring 
the  subjects  of  controversy  under  the  notice  of  all. 

The  Yearly  Meeting,  composed  of  Friends  of  New 
York,  Vermont,  Connecticut,  and  the  province  of 
Canada,  convened  in  the  city  of  New  York  on  Second- 
day,  the  26th  of  Fifth  month,  1828.  In  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders,  held  on  the  Seventh 
day  preceding,  John  Barrow,  who  had  been  clerk  the 
year  before,  opened  the  meeting  as  usual,  and  at  the 
close  of  the  first  sitting  the  representatives  remained 
together  to  nominate  a  clerk.  When  the  meeting 
convened  in  the  afternoon,  one  of  the  representatives 
reported  that  they  had  agreed  to  propose  John  Barrow 
as  clerk;  soon  after  which  another  of  the  representa- 
tives signified  that  the  name  proposed  was  not  their 
choice.  It  appeared  that  the  representatives  were 
divided  into  two  parties,  each  of  wThich  had  a  name  to 
propose,  and  each  claiming  to  be  the  greater  number. 


FURTHER    SEPARATIONS.  2iJ 

As  there  was  much  diversity  of  sentiment  and  no 
decision  could  be  made  in  unity,  John  Barrow  wrote 
a  minute,  stating,  in  substance,  that,  "as  there  was  no 
choice  on  the  part  of  the  representatives,  and  the 
meeting  was  evidently  not  united  on  any  Friend  to 
serve  as  clerk,  the  present  clerk  was  requested  to 
serve  until  the  meeting  was  more  united."  His 
understanding  of  this  minute  was,  as  he  subsequently 
stated,  that  he  should  serve  until  the  next  sitting.1 
He  accordingly  did  so,  and  then,  after  the  withdrawal 
of  the  orthodox  party,  he  was  appointed  clerk. 

"When  the  Yearly  Meeting  for  Discipline  assembled 
on  Second-day  morning,  Samuel  Parsons,  the  clerk 
who  had  been  appointed  the  year  previous,  took  his 
seat  at  the  table,  but  he  did  not  observe  the  usual 
custom  of  bringing1  with  him  the  book  of  minutes,  nor 
did  he  lay  on  the  table  the  reports  from  the  Quarterly 
meetings.2  He  read  an  opening  minute,  and  called  the 
names  of  the  representatives  from  a  slip  of  paper  he 
held  in  his  hand.  It  was  then  his  duty,  according  to 
usage,  to  read  the  reports  from  the  Quarterly  meetings, 
but  at  this  juncture  Thos.  Shillitoe,  a  minister  from 
England,  rose  and  stated  that  a  large  number  of  indi- 
viduals were  there  who  had  been  regularly  disowned, 
and  in  strong  terms  he  protested  against  the  meeting's 
proceeding  with  its  business  while  these  persons  were 
present.  He  alluded  to  Friends  from  Philadelphia, 
who  were  members  of  the  reorganized  Yearly  Meeting. 
This  interference  by  a  member  of  another  yearly  meet- 
ing was  a  step  that  ought  to  have  been  discountenanced 
as  indecorous;  but  it  was  seconded  by  several  prominent 
members  of  the  orthodox  party.     Nicholas  Brown,  of 

1  Test,  of  J.  Barrow,  Foster's  Rep.,  Vol.  II.  pp.  261,  270. 

2  Test,  of  S.  Parsons,  Foster's  Rep.,  I.  178. 
IV  —  25 


290  FURTHER,  SEPARATIONS. 

Canada  West,  a  minister  and  a  member  of  Few  York 
Yearly  Meeting,  urged  the  clerk  to  read  the  reports 
from  the  Quarterly  meetings,  and  then,  the  meeting 
being  properly  opened,  the  subject  that  had  been 
mentioned  might  claim  its  attention.  Elias  Hicks 
deprecated  the  discussion  of  that  subject  as  being  cal- 
culated to  lower  the  dignity  of  the  meeting.  He 
thought  the  Friends  alluded  to  had  as  good  a  right  to 
sit  as  any  who  were  present.  The  discussion  was 
continued  for  some  time  with  much  warmth,  until  an 
orthodox  minister  proposed  that  those  who  were  op- 
posed to  the  sitting  of  the  persons  alluded  to  should 
retire  to  the  basement  story,  which  was  united  with 
by  several  of  that  party.  Nicholas  Brown  then  re- 
marked, that  after  the  proposition  they  had  just  heard, 
it  was  time  the  meeting  should  act  with  decision  ;  — 
that  the  person  at  the  table  was  not  disposed  to  serve 
the  meeting,  but  a  party,  — that  he  had  not  brought 
the  book  of  minutes,  —  and  that  his  intention  evi- 
dently was,  to  separate  from  the  meeting  and  take  its 
books  and  papers.  He  expressed  his  opposition  to 
anything  like  an  adjournment,  and  suggested  that  the 
representatives  should  name  a  clerk  that  would  serve 
the  meeting.  This  proposition  being  united  w:th  by 
many,  — the  representatives,  most  of  whom  had  been 
previously  together  in  conference  on  the  subject, 
named  Samuel  Mott  for  clerk.1 

Samuel  Parsons  then  rose  with  a  paper  in  his  hand, 
which  he  proposed  to  read.  Many  persons,  suspect- 
ing it  was  a  minute  of  adjournment,  strenuously  ob- 
jected to  his  reading  it,  while  the  orthodox  party  in- 
sisted that  he  should  proceed.    Elias  Hicks  suggested 

1  Narrative  of  Thos.  McClintock  ;  see  The  Fd.  or  Adv.  of  Truth 
Vol.  I.  p.  186. 


FURTHER   SEPARATIONS.  291 

that  he  should  be  permitted  to  read  it,  and  then  the 
meeting  would  be  able  to  judge.  Samuel  Parsons 
said  it  was  not  a  minute  of  adjournment,  and  he  pro- 
ceeded to  read  what  he  called  a  "  minute  for  contin- 
uing the  sitting  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  in  the  base- 
ment story  of  the  meeting-house."  When  he  reached 
that  part  of  it  which  stated,  that  "  the  Pennsylvania 
intruders  were  unsound  in  principle  and  disorderly  in 
practice"1  the  meeting  was  deeply  agitated,  and  the 
noise  became  so  great  that  the  reading  could  not  be 
heard. 

Samuel  Mott,  being  called  to  go  to  the  table,  made 
an  effort  to  ascend  the  gallery  steps,  but  the  way 
being  closed,  he  was  obliged  to  step  over  the  gallerv- 
rail,  and  by  the  time  he  reached  the  table,  Samuel 
Parsons  had  nearlv  finished  reading  his  minute, 
which,  though  inaudible  to  the  meeting  at  large, 
seemed  to  be  understood  by  his  party.  They  im- 
mediately withdrew,  and  finding  the  basement  story 
locked,  they  proceeded  to  the  Medical  Hall  which 
had  been  previously  offered  to  them. 

About  two  hundred  and  forty-five  individuals,  in- 
cluding twenty  of  the  representatives,  withdrew ; 
while  those  who  remained  numbered  about  seven 
hundred,  including  sixty-three  representatives.2 

It  is  obvious  that  the  minute  read  by  Samuel  Par- 
sons was  not  the  act  of  the  meeting,  but  was  made 
to  suit  the  views  of  a  small  minority. 

A  separation  took  place,  on  the  afternoon  of  the 
same   day,  in  the  women's  Yearly  Meeting,  by  the 

withdrawal  of  the  orthodox  party;  but  not  having 

_ 

1  Test,  of  S.  Parsons,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  p.  181. 

2  Test,  of  H.  Jackson,  and  Exhibit  0,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  II. 
pp.  69  and  459. 


292  EPISTLE    OF    ADVICE. 

the  clerk  with  them,  they  did  not  take  the  books  and 
papers,  as  had  been  done  in  the  men's  meeting. 

After  the    secession   of  the   Orthodox   party,  the 
Yearly  Meeting  continued  its  deliberations  in  entire 
harmony,  and   issued   an   Epistle  of  Advice   to   its 
members,  from  which  the  following  passage  is  se 
lected:  — 

"Such,  dear  friends,  being  the  state  of  our  affairs, 
we  may  anticipate  difficulty  in  our  subordinate  and 
lesser  meetings  from  those  who  have  separated  them- 
selves. Of  the  trials  which  will  be  attendant  on  the 
present  state  of  things  among  us,  in  our  Quarterly, 
Monthly,  and  Preparative  meetings,  we  wish  affec- 
tionately to  apprise  you.  And,  dear  friends,  we 
entreat  you  humbly  to  seek  for  counsel  and  direction 
at  the  Divine  fountain  of  all  true  wisdom.  "We  de- 
sire that  on  all  occasions  we  may  be  actuated  by  a 
spirit  of  tenderness  and  love  towards  those  who  have 
gone  from  us,  and  that  our  conduct  may  give  evidence 
that  we  are  governed  by  those  truly  Christian  prin- 
ciples under  the  influence  of  which  we  cannot  render 
railing  for  railing,  but,  contrariwise,  blessing;  —  un- 
der the  influence  of  these  blessed  principles  we  Bhall 
be  preserved  from  a  spirit  of  accusation  and  denuncia- 
tion towards  any  who  may  differ  in  opinion  on  points 
not  involving  the  practice  of  Christian  virtues.  We 
shall  hence  be  willing  to  concede  to  others  those  in- 
estimable privileges  which  we  claim  for  ourselves, 
and  shall  not  be  found  violating  the  divine  rule,  'As 
ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even 
so  to  them.'  And  thus,  while  we  temperately  but 
firmly  maintain  our  rights,  we  shall  not  encroach 
upon  the  rights  of  others.  But  humblj*  relying  on 
the  guidance  and  direction  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 


SEPARATION    IN    OHIO.  293 

we  shall  know  it  to  be  the  'wisdom  of  God  and  the 
power  of  God,'  and  shall  experience  the  unity  of  his 
Holy  Spirit  to  be  the  bond  of  peace  in  all  our  assem- 
blies. Since  the  separation  has  taken  place,  our 
meeting  has  continued  large,  and  we  have  been  able 
to  rejoice  in  the  evidence  of  this  blessed  unity  in 
which  the  affairs  of  the  Church  have  been  harmo- 
niously transacted,  and  Friends  have  been  edified  to- 
gether." 

In  the  year  1828  or  '29,  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings 
sent  a  circular  to  all  the  Monthly  meetings  compos- 
ing the  Yearly  Meeting,  requesting  them  to  appoint 
committees  in  each  meeting,  to  examine  carefully  the 
number  of  persons  composing  each  Monthly  meet- 
ing, designating  the  number  of  Friends,  the  number 
that  had  separated,  and  those  who  remained  neutral. 
The  returns  showed  the  following  result :  — 
Friends,  12,532;  Orthodox,  5,913;  Neutrals,  857.1 

In  the  autumn  of  *1828,  a  separation  took  place  in 
Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  attended  by  a  scene 
of  disorder  and  tumult  painful  to  contemplate  and 
mortifying  to  both  parties  who  were  engaged  in  it. 
As  it  became  the  subject  of  judicial  investigation, 
our  chief  reliance  for  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  will 
be  drawn  from  the  testimony  of  witnesses  given  in 
evidence  before  Judge  Hallock  at  Steubenville,  Ohio. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  which  met  at  Mount  Pleasant, 
was  composed  of  five  Quarterly  meetings,  namely, 
Redstone,  Short  Creek,  Salem,  Stillwater,  and  New 
Garden,  in  all  of  which,  except  the  first,  the  separa- 
tion had  already  taken  place,  and  each  party  had  ap- 


1  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  pp.  263,  463. 
25*  IV  — 2  0 


294  SEPARATION    IN    OHIO. 

pointed  representatives  ;  so  that  there  were  in  attend- 
ance double  sets  of  representatives  from  all  the  Quar- 
ters except  Redstone.1  In  each  of  the  four  divided 
Quarterly  meetings,  the  orthodox  section  had  ap- 
pointed guards  to  keep  the  doors  of  the  Yearly  meet- 
ing-house, and  exclude  persons  who  had  been  dis- 
owned or  were  under  dealings.2  It  had  been  custom- 
ary in  former  years  to  appoint  door-keepers  to  ex- 
clude from  the  meetings  for  discipline  those  who 
were  not  members  of  the  Society,  and  no  unpleasant 
consequences  had  followed,  because  there  was  then 
no  dispute  as  to  rights  of  membership. 

The  case  was  now  entirely  altered ;  each  party 
claimed  all  the  rights  of  membership,  and  those  called 
Orthodox  had  already  begun  to  disown  their  oppo- 
nents who  did  not  acknowledge  the  authority  of  their 
meetings  nor  the  validity  of  their  excommunications. 
In  order  to  illustrate  this  point,  the  case  of  Isaac 
James  may  be  cited,  who  was  one  of  those  intended 
to  be  excluded.  He  was  a  member  of  Concord 
Monthly  Meeting,  which  had  consisted  of  about 
forty  families,  of  whom  only  eleven  or  twelve  were 
orthodox.  This  small  minority,  in  opposition  to  the. 
sense  of  the  meeting,  applied  to  Short  Creek  Quarter 
to  lay  down  their  Monthly  Meeting,  alleging  that  it 
could  not  be  held  to  the  credit  of  the  Society.  A 
minute  was  accordingly  made  to  lay  it  down  and 
attach  the  members  to  Short  Creek  Monthly  Meet- 
ing, but  a  large  majority  of  the  members  refused  to 
submit  to   this  arbitrary  measure,  and  Isaac  James 

1  Testimony  of  Elisha  Bates,  Report  of  Trial  by  M.  T.  C. 
Gould,  p.  20. 

2  Test,  of  E.  Bates,  Jonathan  Taylor,  and  D.  Steer,  Ibid.  pp. 
21,  33,  G5. 


SEPARATION    IN"    OHIO.  295 

being  one  of  this. number,  was,  for  that  reason,  dis- 
owned by  the  Orthodox  party.1 

In  like  manner,  Plainfield  Monthly  Meeting  was 
laid  clown  by  the  Orthodox  party,  in  opposition  to 
the  wishes  of  nine-tenths  of  its  members.2 

The  principle  on  which  these  proceedings  were 
conducted  was  avowed  in  the  testimony  of  Elisha 
Bates,  the  most  prominent  among  the  leaders  of  that 
party,  and  subsequently  clerk  of  their  Yearly  Meeting. 

Question.  "Does  the  majority  usually  disown, or  the 
minority?"  Answer,  by  E.  Bates.  "In  some  cases 
a  minority  may  do  it."  Question.  "If  a  meeting  be 
composed  of  fifty  members,  is  it  in  the  power  of  ten 
to  disown  forty  ? "  "Yes."  "Is  it  in  the  power  of 
three  to  disown  forty-seven?"  "Yes;  a  very  small 
number  may  do  it."3 

The  guards  were  instructed  to  exclude  from  the 
meetings  for  discipline,  not  only  those  who,  like 
Isaac  James,  were  regarded  by  the  Orthodox  party 
as  disowned  persons,  but  also  Friends  standing  in  the 
same  position,  who  should  attend  from  other  Yearly 
meetings,  where  a  separation  had  taken  place. 

A  large  number  of  ministers  and  other  Friends 
were  in  attendance  from  distant  meetings.  Among 
them  were  Thomas  Shillitoe,  and  Isaac  and  Anna 
Braithwait  from  England;  Elias  Hicks  from  Long 
Island,  Amos  Peaslee  from  Kew  Jersey,  Elisha 
Dawson  from  Delaware,  and  Halliday  Jackson  from 
Darby,  Pennsylvania. 

On  Seventh-day  morning  preceding  the  Yearly 
Meeting,  a  committee  of  six  persons  called  on  Elias 

1  Testimony  of  David  Steer,  (an  orthodox  witness,)  p.  66. 

2  Testimony  of  Peter  Askew,  p.  56,  and  of  Doct.  Carrol,  p.  117. 
8  Testimony  of  Elisha  Bates,  p.  20. 


296  SEPARATION    IN    OHIO. 

Hicks,  and  presented  him  a  paper,  the  purport  of 
which  was,  an  enumeration  of  charges  of  unsound 
ministry,  as  originally  preferred  against  him  hy  Pine 
Street  Meeting,  Philadelphia,  and  thence  forwarded 
to  their  Orthodox  hrethren  on  Long  Island,  styling 
themselves  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Westbury  and 
Jericho.  Elias  Hicks  had  with  him  a  minute  of  con- 
currence from  the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Jericho,  in- 
dorsed by  "Westbury  Quarterly  Meeting,  and  when 
he  left  home,  no  such  monthly  meeting  as  West- 
bury and  Jericho  was  known  to  exist.  It  appears 
that  three  adult  male  members  and  about  the  same 
number  of  females  withdrew  from  Jericho  Monthly 
Meeting,  and  joining  themselves  with  about  double 
their  number  from  Westbury  Monthly  Meeting,  set 
up  a  new  monthly  meeting,  which  they  called  West- 
bury and  Jericho.1  This  small  body  undertook  to 
sit  in  judgment  on  the  religious  character  of  Elias 
Hicks,  and  after  he  bad  departed  on  his  journey  to 
Ohio,  they  issued  a  mandate  for  his  recall.  He  of 
course  disregarded  this  unwarrantable  proceeding. 

When  the  hour  arrived,  on  Seventh-day  mornii 
for  the  Meeting  of  Ministers  and  Elders  to  convene, 
"it  was  found  that  the  Orthodox  had  principally 
taken  their  seats,  and  that  guards  were  stationed  at 
the  gate  to  prevent  Friends  from  entering:  and  they 
accordingly,  in  a  quiet  and  unobtrusive  manner,  after 
procuring  seats,  sat  down  and  proceeded  with  their 
meeting  in  the  open  air."2 

On  First-day  morning,  a  large   congregation  was 

1  Westbury  Meeting  had  3  U  Friends  and  39  Orthodox  ;  Jerioho 
Meeting  had  211  Friends,  9  Orthodox,  and  3  Neutrals.  Sec  In- 
hibit X,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  II.  p.  464. 

8  Statement  of  M.  T.  C.  Gould,  Friend  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  I.  251. 


SEPARATION    IN    OHIO.  297 

assembled  for  divine  worship  at  the  yearly  meeting- 
house. Elias  Hicks  delivered  a  discourse,  "which 
was  deemed  by  those  not  avowedly  opposed  to  him, 
quite  unexceptionable."  The  moment  he  was  seated, 
Elisha  Bates  rose,  and  made  a  speech  in  which  he 
asserted  that  Elias  "had  not  only  obtained  his  certifi- 
cates to  travel,  by  improper  means,  but  was  now  for- 
mally and  officially  recalled  by  his  own  Monthly  Meet- 
ing, a  copy  of  the  official  papers  being  served  on  him 
only  the  day  previous."1  This  false  statement  uttered 
in  the  presence  of  a  large  audience,  most  of  whom 
knew  nothing  of  the  circumstances,  will  enable  us  to 
decide  how  much  reliance  may  be  placed  on  the 
other  statements  of  Elisha  Bates.  It  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  he  was  unwilling  for  the  people  to  hear 
Elias  Hicks  when  he  rose  to  reply,  and  that  he  joined 
with  others  in  breaking  the  meeting  while  Elias  was 
standing. 

It  appears  by  the  statement  of  M.  T.  C.  Gould, 
the  stenographer,  that  when  T.  Shillitoe  and  Anna 
Braithwait  had  shaken  hands,  the  people  seemed  dis- 
posed to  remain  and  hear  Elias  Hicks, —  and  that 
Elisha  Bates  in  a  loud  and  authoritative  manner  re- 
quested them  to  withdraw  immediately,  so  that  the 
caretakers  might  close  the  house.  In  order  to  end 
the  confusion  that  ensued,  Elias  shook  hands  with 
those  near  him  and  walked  out,  the  great  body  of 
the  meeting  following  his  example.  Some  young 
men  that  remained  were  told,  by  a  lawyer  employed 
for  the  occasion,  that  they  would  subject  themselves 
to  severe  penalties  if  they  did  not  retire.2 

1  Statement  of  M.  T.  C.  Gould,  Friend  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  I.  251. 
■  Ibid.  252. 

202 


298  SEPAKATION   IN   OHIO. 

On  First-day  afternoon,  Elislia  Dawson  delivered  a 
brief  discourse.  Soon  after  him,  Amos  Peaslee  rose 
and  spoke  "in  a  very  feeling  manner,"  but  several 
ministers  in  the  gallery  whispered  together,  and  at 
length  Jonathan  Taylor  requested  him  to  take  his 
seat.  He  paused  during  the  interruption,  and  then 
continued  his  discourse. 

In  a  short  time,  Elisha  Bates  rose,  and  in  a  loud 
voice  exclaimed,  "Amos  Peaslee,  wilt  thou  please  to 
take  thy  seat.  Thou  art  an  intruder,  and  hast  no 
right  to  be  in  this  house."  Immediately  there  was  a 
cry  from  many  voices,  "Elisha  Bates,  sit  down!" 
Great  confusion  ensued,  and  many  rose  to  their 
feet.  After  a  pause,  Amos  said  to  the  people,  "By 
the  mercy  of  God,  I  beseech  you  to  be  still."  The 
meeting  became  quiet,  and  he  concluded  his  dis- 
course without  further  interruption.1 

Amos  Peaslee  was  then  travelling  as  an  approved 
minister,  with  a  certificate  from  "Woodbury  Monthly 
Meeting,  New  Jersey.  That  meeting,  however,  had 
been  divided  before  the  certificate  was  granted ;  a 
small  minority  of  its  members,  being  orthodox,  had 
withdrawn  to  hold  a  separate  meeting.2 

At  10  o'clock,  on  Second-day,  the  8th  of  Ninth 
month,  the  Yearly  Meeting  assembled.  The  gallery 
seats  were  filled,  mostly  with  orthodox  Friends,  be- 
fore the  hour  appointed;  there  were  many  guards  at 
the  doors,  and  a  crowd  of  people  in  the  yard  stand- 
ing in  the  rain.  Some  of  them  were  Friends  of  the 
class  intended  to  be  excluded ;  others  were  not  mem- 


i  'i 


Testimony  of  David  Scholfield,  p.  130;  Richard  Barnard,  p.  97, 
and  J.  Updegraff,  p.  136. 

2  Testimony  of  Richard  Barnard,  99. 


SEPARATION    IN    OHIO.  299 

bers,  but  were  drawn  by  curiosity  to  witness  the 
expected  collision. 

Elias  Hicks  did  not  attend  that  day.1 

When  Amos  Peaslee  and  Elisha  Dawson  came  to 
the  door,  the  guards  objected  to  their  entering,  and 
they  halted.  A  dense  crowd  soon  gathered  behind 
them,  pressing  forward.  Amos  said,  "  Dear  friends, 
don't  push,  be  peaceable ;  if  we  are  not  admitted, 
we  can't  help  it.  If  we  can  go  in  peaceably,  well;  if 
not,  we  will  go  away."  The  pressure  from  without 
continued  to  increase;  there  was  no  way  of  escape  for 
those  at  the  door;  the  guards  at  length  gave  way,  and 
the  crowd  rushed  in,  carrying  the  Friends  with  them.3 

Before  the  meeting  proceeded  to  business,  Israel 
French,  a  Friend  in  good  standing,  rose  and  said, 
that  ua  painful  duty  devolved  upon  him,  to  object  to 
the  clerks  at  the  table ;  that  their  conduct  since  last 
year  had  been  such  as,  in  his  opinion,  had  disquali- 
fied them  for  serving  the  meeting  acceptably."3 
There  was  immediately  a  large  expression  of  unity 
with  this  declaration ;  but  some  objected,  saying  it 
was  disorderly. 

Jonathan  Taylor,  the  clerk  appointed  the  year  pre- 
vious, was  at  the  table,  as  usual,  and  read  a  minute  he 
had  prepared  for  opening  the  meeting.  The  names 
of  the  representatives  were  called,  all  of  whom,  except 
five,  answered;  the  number  present  exceeding  fifty. 
It  is  to  be  understood  that  these  were  the  representa- 
tives of  the  orthodox  section  of  four  Quarterly  meet- 
ings, and  about  half  of  those  from  Redstone. 

William  B.  Irish  proposed  the  name  of  David 
Hilles,  of  Redstone  Quarter,  for  clerk,  which  was  con- 

1  See  his  Journal,  p.  413.      2  Test,  of  Levi  Pickering,  p.  124. 
8  Testimony  of  Israel  French,  p.  173. 


300  SEPARATION    IN    OHIO. 

curred  in  by  a  large  number  of  voices  in  rapid  succes- 
sion ;  others  objected  ;  but  the  advocates  of  a  change 
of  clerks  called  to  Hilles  to  come  forward  to  the  table. 
The  aisle  was  crowded,  and  the  gallery-steps  leading 
to  the  table  were  occupied  by  a  dense  mass  of  ortho- 
dox Friends.  Hilles  was  urged  forward  through  the 
crowd,  until  he  reached  the  stove  near  the  centre  of 
the  aisle,  where  he  wrote  an  opening  minute  ;  but  the 
young  men  of  his  party  insisted  that  he  should  go  to 
the  table,  and  they  undertook  to  open  the  way.  No 
blows  were  given,  but  there  was  much  pushing  and 
crowding.  At  this  juncture  a  cry  was  raised  that  the 
gallery  over  the  minister's  seat  was  falling.  Although 
a  false  alarm,  it  caused  a  rush  to  the  doors  and  win- 
dows, and  many  left  the  house.  There  was  a  suspen* 
sion  of  the  contest,  but  it  was  soon  renewed,  and  the 
clerk's  table,  being  held  by  one  party  and  seized  by 
the  other,  was  broken  to  pieces. 

Jonathan  Taylor,  being  pressed  between  the  table 
and  door,  was  considerably  injured,  though  uninten- 
tionally. Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  a  prominent  member 
of  the  orthodox  party,  moved  an  adjournment  to  the 
next  day,  and  proposed  submitting  the  question  to 
the  representatives,  whose  names  were  accordingly 
called,  and  they  nearly  all  answered  in  the  affirmative. 
The  orthodox  members  then  withdrew,  being  about 
half  the  meeting,  or,  according  to  their  estimate,  more 
than  half.1 

The  Friends  who  remained  recognized  David  Hilles 
as  clerk  for  the  day.  They  had  reports  from  their 
section  of  four  Quarterly  meetings,  and  from  the  un- 

1  Testimony  of  E.  Bates,  Jona.  Taylor,  B.  W.  Ladd,  Rich.  Bar- 
nard, Doct.  Carral,  Levi  Pickering,  and  others.  Gould's  Report 
of  Trial,  Phila.  ed.  1829. 


SEPARATION   IN    OHIO.  301 

divided  meeting  of  Redstone.  After  calling  the 
names  of  the  representatives,  they  proceeded  to 
business. 

The  women's  meeting  separated  at  the  same  time, 
but  with  less  disorder. 

On  Third-day  morning,  those  who  had  retained 
possession  of  the  house  again  assembled  in  it,  and 
the  representatives  having  conferred  together,  pro- 
posed David  Hilles  for  clerk  and  Jehu  Lewis  for 
assistant,  who  were  then  regularly  appointed  by  the 
meeting.  The  orthodox  section  of  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, having  assembled  in  the  yard,  sent  Elisha  Bates 
and  others  as  a  deputation  to  demand  the  occupancy 
of  the  house  for  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting.  They  were 
told,  in  reply,  that  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  was  then  in 
session,  and  they  might  come  in  and  take  their  seats. 
They  required  an  explicit  answer,  and  Friends  in  the 
house  tendered  them  the  following  proposition,  viz. : 

"To  the  party  of  Friends  called  Orthodox,  styling  them- 
selves the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio. 

"Dear  Friends, — We,  the  committee  appointed 
by  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  held  at  Mount 
Pleasant,  on  the  8th  day  of  the  9th  month,  1828,  by 
authority  of  said  Yearly  Meeting,  agree  to  propose  to 
you  that  an  equitable  division  of  the  property  belong- 
ing to  the  Yearly  Meeting  be  made,  either  by  dividing 
the  time,  so  that  the  meeting-house  shall  accommo- 
date both  parties,  or  that  a  fair  estimate  of  the  value 
of  the  property  be  made,  and  that  the  party  holding 
the  meeting-house  pay  to  the  other  party  an  equiva- 
lent for  the  relinquishment  of  the  right  to  their  part, 
agreeably  to  the  numbers  of  the  relative  parties;  and 
if  you  accede  to  this  proposal,  it  is  further  proposed, 

26 


302  SEPARATION    IN    OHIO. 

that  you  appoint  a  like  committee  to  enter  into  an 
amicable  arrangement  with  us  to  effect  the  said  ob- 
ject, and  notify  us  thereof.  Signed  by  direction  and 
on  behalf  of  the  committee. 

"Mount  Pleasant,  9th  day  of  9th  mo.,  1828. 

Joseph  John, 
Samuel  Jones, 
James  Belangee, 
Joseph  Mills." 

This  document  was  read  twice  to  Elisha  Bates,  the 
official  organ  of  the  Orthodox  party,  and  a  copy  ten- 
dered to  him,  but  he  immediately  withdrew  with  the 
other  members  of  the  deputation.1 

The  Orthodox  Yearly  Meeting  was  then  opened  in 
the  meeting-house  yard ;  the  representatives  nomi- 
nated Elisha  Bates  for  clerk,  who  was  accordingly 
appointed,  and  the  meeting  adjourned  to  Short 
Creek  meeting-house,  where  it  continued  to  hold  its 
sittings.2 

The  legal  measures  adopted  by  the  orthodox  party 
during  the  week  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  were  most 
extraordinary  for  a  people  professing  to  hold  the  prin- 
ciples of  Friends.  On  Second-day  morning,  at  an 
early  hour,  Elisha  Bates  stated  that  they  were  in  pos- 
session of  the  property,  and  that  civil  officers  would 
be  in  attendance  to  protect  them.  Soon  after  this, 
notices  were  served  on  a  number  of  Friends  from  other 
yearly  meetings,  among  whom  was  Jesse  Merrit,  the 
travelling  companion  of  Elias  Hicks,  to  prohibit  them 

1  Statement  of  M.  T.  C.  Gould,   Friend  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  I. 
p.  258. 

2  Tostimony  of  D.  Seholfield,  p.  130 ;  Wm.  Sharon,  p.  123  ;  E. 
Bates,  p.  1G. 


SEPARATION   IN    OHIO.  303 

from  entering  the  meeting-house  during  the  session 
of  Ohio  Yearly  Meeting,  and  to  forewarn  them  that 
if  they  intruded,  the  trustees  would  seek  their  remedy 
by  appeal  to  the  legal  tribunals  of  the  State  of  Ohio.1 

On  Third-day  afternoon,  the  sheriff  served  a  pro- 
cess on  James  Tolerton,  Halliday  Jackson,  and  Nathan 
Galbraith,  requiring  their  appearance  before  the  court 
then  in  session  at  Steubenville,  the  next  morning  at 
ten  o'clock,  it  being  a  distance  of  twenty-one  miles. 
One  of  them  attended  accordingly,  and  found  the  writ 
had  not  been  returned. 

On  Fourth-day  morning,  two  deputy  sheriffs  and  a 
constable  arrived  from  Steubenville,  and  in  the  course 
of  the  day  served  writs  on  about  a  dozen  individuals, 
among  whom  was  David  Hilles,  clerk  of  the  Yearly 
Meeting.  The  next  day  he,  with  other  defendants 
and  witnesses,  proceeded  to  Steubenville,  appeared 
before  the  court,  and  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  post- 
ponement of  the  hearing  until  the  15th  of  10th  month. 
"Among  the  thirty  orthodox  Friends  who  appeared 
at  Steubenville,  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution,  were 
Elisha  Bates  and  Jonathan  Taylor,  of  Mount  Pleasant, 
and  a  number  of  distinguished  individuals  from  Phila- 
delphia, JSTew  England,  and  beyond  the  Atlantic."2 
It  appears  that  these  high-professors  of  religion  left 
their  own  Yearly  Meeting  to  appear  as  prosecutors 
and  witnesses  against  their  brethren,  in  violation  of 
the  discipline,  for  at  that  time  David  Hilles,  who  was 
one  of  the  representatives  from  Redstone  Quarterly 
Meeting,  had  not  been  disowned  by  the  Orthodox, 


1  See  copy  of  Notice*  in  The  Friend  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.  I. 
p  254. 
*  Narrative  of  M.  T.  C.  Gould,  Fd.  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  I.  260. 


304  SEPARATION"    IN"    OHIO. 

and  according  to  their  own  theory  was  a  member  of 
the  Society. 

Jonathan  Taylor,  in  his  testimony  before  the  court, 
admitted  that  "David  Hilles  was  a  regular  member 
of  the  Society  at  the  time  this  suit  was  brought," 
and  said,  "he  believed  the  discipline  provided  that 
members  should  not  sue  one  another  and  go  to  law."1 

The  trial  at  Steuoenville  came  on  the  15th  of  10th 
month,  and  the  examination  of  witnesses  continued 
about  a  week.  The  defendants,  David  Hilles  and 
Isaac  James,  were  prosecuted  on  the  complaint  of 
Benjamin  W.  Ladd  for  disturbing  the  Ohio  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Friends,  under  a  statute  for  the  punish- 
ment of  disturbers  of  religious  meetings.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  State's  attorney,  the  prosecutors  had  em- 
ployed seven  lawyers,  and  the  defendants  had  four. 
The  material  facts  of  the  case  have  been  stated  in 
this  narrative,  as  related  in  the  report  of  the  stenog- 
rapher who  attended  the  trial. 

Judge  Hallock,  after  reviewing  the  evidence,  says : 
"It  is  to  be  observed  that  not  all  the  'Orthodox'  or 
'Hicksites'  took  part  in  this  violence.  Probably 
much  the  greater  part  of  both  parties  were  inactive 
spectators." — "The  proposition  to  elect  a  clerk  was 
not  in  order,  being  before  the  meeting  was  open  and 
ready  to  proceed  to  business, — and  unprecedented,  at 
any  rate,  in  any  body  whose  proceedings  would  have 
the  authority  of  precedent  for  that  meeting."  *  *  *  * 
He  then  concludes  that  the  proceedings  by  a  part  of 
the  meeting  "to  expel  Taylor  and  put  Hilles  in  his 
place  were  not  warranted ;  and  that  the  use  of  force 
was  a  disturbance  of  the  meeting,  and  therefore  a 


1  Gould's  Report  of  Trial,  p.  181 


SEPARATION    IN    OHIO.  305 

violation  of  the  law  of  the  land."  He  gave  judg- 
ment that  each  of  the  defendants  should  pay  a  fine 
of  five  dollars.1  The  Orthodox  party  were  not  sat- 
isfied with  one  suit  at  la^,  but  about  the  same  time, 
and  through  the  same  agent,  Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  in- 
stituted a  prosecution  against  Jonathan  Pierce,  Israel 
French,  and  other  Friends,  for  "assembling  with  in- 
tent to  commit  a  riot  and  proceeding  to  commit  the 
same."  It  was  founded  on  the  same  facts  as  the  suit 
against  Ililles  and  James,  and  was  tried  in  the  court 
of  common  pleas  at  Steubenville  in  the  Spring  of 
1829.  The  court  decided  that  the  defendants  should 
be  imprisoned  in  the  jail  of  the  county  for  thirty 
minutes,  and  should  each  pay  a  fine  of'six  and  a 
quarter  cents. 

The  defendants  cheerfully  submitted  to  their  brief 
incarceration ;  but,  on  the  fine  and  costs,  appealed  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio.  In  the  Tenth  month 
of  the  same  year,  the  judgment  of  the  inferior  court 
was  reversed  and  the  costs  of  the  prosecution  thrown 
upon  Benjamin  W.  Ladd,  the  agent  of  the  Orthodox 
party.  The  Judge  said,  "  it  was  the  verdict  of  the 
jury  that  they  had  not  found  the  defendants  guilty 
of  a  riot,  and  the  court  (of  common  pleas)  ought  to 
have  held  it  for  naught  and  discharged  them."2 

On  reviewing  the  deplorable  scenes  that  attended 
the  separation  of  Friends  in  Ohio,  the  impartial  in- 
quirer will  be  constrained  to  admit  that  both  parties 
were  obnoxious  to  censure.  There  was  however  this 
difference :  the  Orthodox  party  were  the  aggressors 
by  resorting  to  physical  force  to  exclude  from  the 

1  M.  T.  C.  Gould's  Report  of  Trial. 

2  The  Friend  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.  I.  261 ;  and  Vol.  II.  pp.  166 
and  360. 

26*  2P 


306  SEPAKATION    IN   INDIANA. 

meeting-house  Friends  who  had  as  good  a  right  to 
enter  as  themselves  ; — this  they  did  by  previous  con- 
cert, and  with  a  deliberate  purpose.  The  Friends, 
whom  they  attempted  to  exclude,  generally  went  to 
the  meeting  intending  "to  be  pacific,"  in  accordance 
with  the  advice  of  their  elder  brethren.1  The  con- 
duct of  some  of  them,  after  entering  the  house,  was 
very  reprehensible,  but  it  appears  they  were  mostly 
young  men,  actuated  by  a  sudden  impulse  of  party 
zeal.  After  obtaining  possession,  the  Friends  evinced 
their  sense  of  justice  by  offering  to  make  an  equitable 
division  of  the  property  ;  while  the  Orthodox  party 
manifested  their  intolerant  spirit,  by  harassing  their 
brethren  with  vexatious  lawsuits,  thus  violating  the 
discipline  they  pretended  to  uphold. 

The  relative  numbers  of  the  two  sections  through- 
out  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Ohio  were  supposed  to  be 
nearly  equal,  but  so  far  as  known  to  the  author,  no 
census  was  taken. 

In  Indiana  Yearly  Meeting,  the  separation  was  con- 
ducted in  a  manner  somewhat  similar  to  that  pur- 
sued in  Philadelphia.  At  the  Yearly  Meeting  held 
at  Richmond,  Indiana,  in  1827,  a  large  number  of 
strangers  were  present,  among  whom  were  two 
English  Friends  and  Elisha  Bates,  with  others  from 
Ohio.  A  document  called  a  "Testimony  and  Epistle 
of  Advice,"  was  .introduced  from  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings,  and  though  much  objected  to,  was  adopted, 
through  the  preponderating  influence  of  the  orthodox 
party.  This  being  sent  down  to  the  subordinate 
meetings,  caused  much  dissatisfaction  in  some  places. 

1  Testimony  of  Israel  Updegraff,  p.  150. 


SEPARATION   IN   INDIANA.  307 

In  the  Fifth  month,  1828,  it  was  rejected  by  Miami 
Quarterly  Meeting  and  denied  a  place  on  their  min- 
utes. In  the  Eighth  month,  another  effort  was  made 
at  that  Quarter  to  obtain  its  acceptance,  but  without 
effect.  Amos  Peaslee  and  Elisha  Dawson  being  in 
attendance,  the  orthodox  party  objected  to  any  busi- 
ness being  transacted  while  they  were  present,  and 
having  the  clerk  on  their  side,  many  hours  were 
spent  in  fruitless  debate.  At  length  a  committee, 
that  had  been  appointed  at  a  previous  Quarterly 
meeting  to  nominate  a  clerk,  brought  forward  the 
name  of  one,  whom  the  great  body  of  the  meeting 
agreed  to  appoint,  and  then  the  orthodox  party  with- 
drew, leaving  the  greater  number  in  possession  of  the 
house. 

The  Friends  who  remained,  taking  into  considera- 
tion the  discord  that  had  been  manifested  in  their 
meeting  and  many  others  for  some  time  past,  and 
being  convinced  that  they  could  not  enjoy  their  re- 
ligious rights  while  connected  with  the  opposite  party, 
concluded  it  would  be  right  to  take  measures  for  re- 
organizing the  Yearly  Meeting,  "  on  the  ancient  foun- 
dation and  principles  of  the  Society,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  their  present  discipline  for  the  Friends  of 
Indiana,  Illinois,  and  the  western  and  middle  parts 
of  the  State  of  Ohio."  Members  of  the  Quarterly 
and  Monthly  meetings  within  those  limits,  who  were 
prepared  to  unite  with  this  proposition,  were  invited 
to  meet  at  Miami,  (Waynesville,)  the  last  Second  day 
of  the  Ninth  month,  and  the  ministers  and  elders  on 
the  Seventh  day  preceding. 

In  pursuance  of  this  proposition,  a  Yearly  meeting 
was  held,  said  to  be  attended  by  between  six  and 
seven   hundred   Friends   including  both   sexes,  and 


308  SEPARATION    iN   BALTIMORE. 

representatives  with  reports  from  four  Quarterly  meet- 
ings, where  a  division  had  taken  place,  were  in  at- 
tendance.1 

The  Yearly  Meeting  was  harmonious  and  satis- 
factory. It  was  subsequently  held  alternately  at 
Waynesville,  Ohio,  and  Richmond,  Ind.,  and  being 
recognized  by  the  Yearly  meetings  of  Philadelphia, 
K'ew  York,  Baltimore,  and  Ohio,  has  continued  to 
correspond  with  them.  The  number  of  its  members 
is  much  smaller  than  those  constituting  the  Orthodox 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Indiana. 

At  the  Yearly  Meeting  eld  in  Baltimore  for  the 
Western  Shore  of  Maryland  and  the  adjacent  parts 
of  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia,  from  the  27th  to  the 
31st  of  the  Tenth  month,  1828,  the  meeting  was 
opened  as  usual  on  Second-day  morning.  After  the 
certificates  of  Friends  in  attendance  from  other 
Yearly  meetings  had  been  read,  and  a  committee 
appointed  to  prepare  indorsements  for  them,  the  as- 
sistant clerk  informed  the  meeting  that  there  were  a 
number  of  epistles  and  other  documents  on  the  table, 
with  the  nature  of  which  they  were  unacquainted, 
and  he  proposed,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  de- 
bate, that  they  should  be  referred  to  the  representa- 
tives, for  them  to  inspect,  and  say  whether  any  or  all 
of  them  should  be  read  in  the  meeting.  This  propo- 
sition was  united  with  generally,  and  adopted. 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  George  Jones,  a 
minister  from  England,  endeavored,  without  success, 
to  effect  a  separation.2     He  objected  to  the  course 

1  The  Friend  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.   I.  pp.  88,  98,  and  Vol.  II. 
pp.  137  to  140. 

2  Testimony  of  Halliday  Jackson,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  II.  p.  70. 


SEPARATION    IN   BALTIMORE.  309 

pursued  in  referring  the  epistle  to  the  representatives 
for  examination,  and  to  accepting  the  certificates  of 
Friends  in  attendance  from  Yearly  meetings;  which, 
he  alleged,  had  departed  from  the  principles  of 
Friends.  He  concluded  his  remarks  in  these  words : 
"As  my  mind  is  thoroughly  sensible  of  the  truth, 
that  this  meeting  has  departed  from  the  ancient  doc- 
trines of  the  Society,  I  cannot  consider  it  right  to  be 
one  with  you  in  a  meeting  that  has  departed  from 
the  meetings  of  Friends,  or  one  that  will  thus  disown 
the  order  that  has  been  maintained  by  the  Society. 
Therefore  I  must  leave  the  meeting,  and  leave  you 
to  such  choice  as  you  have  made."1 

As  he  pronounced  the  last  few  words,  he  descended 
from  the  minister's  gallery  and  left  the  house,  but, 
writh  one  exception,  his  orthodox  brethren  were  not 
then  prepared  to  follow  him. 

On  Third-clay  morning,  the  Answers  to  the  Queries 
were  read,  and  some  edifying  counsel  handed  forth. 
In  the  afternoon,  the  representatives  produced  an 
epistle  addressed  to  all  the  Yearly  meetings  of 
Friends,  which  w^as  discussed  during  the  remainder 
of  the  sitting,  but  not  adopted  by  the  meeting. 

On  Fourth-day  morning,  the  representatives  re- 
ported in  favor  of  reading  all  the  epistles  that  had 
been  received.  They  were  read  accordingly.  The 
epistle  from  London,  and  those  from  the  Orthodox 
Yearly  meetings  of  Ohio  and  Virginia,  were  regarded 
by  many  as  uncharitable  and  disrespectful.  Those 
from  the  reorganized  Yearly  meetings  of  Philadelphia 
and  Indiana,  and  from  the  larger  body  in  New  York, 

1  Reported  by  a  stenographer ;  see  Friend  or  Adv.  of  Truth, 
Vol.  II.  92. 

2P2 


310 


SEPARATION    IN    BALTIMORE. 


were  affectionate  and  satisfactory.  It  was  stated  that 
a  similar  epistle  from  Friends  in  Ohio  had  been  writ- 
ten, but  was  not  received.  John  Jewett,  in  some 
impressive  remarks,  showed  that  the  Yearly  Meeting 
must  define  its  position,  inasmuch  as  the  Friends 
with  whom  we  had  corresponded  in  Philadelphia 
were,  m  some  of  the  epistles,  called  Separatists,  and 
charged  with  insubordination.  He  had  attended 
their  meeting,  and  was  prepared  to  say  they  were 
the  great  body  of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting  and 
the  charges  laid  against  them  of  disbelieving  the 
Scriptures  and  denying  the  divinity  of  Christ  were 
utterly  false. 

e    Edward  Stabler  and  Thomas  Wetherald  concurred 
in  these  views.     "They  are,"  said  the  latter,   -our 
brethren  m  suffering  — in  doctrine,  and   in  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  everlasting  truth,  and  are  equally  with 
ourselves  alluded  to  in  the  false  declarations  which 
one  of  these  epistles  contains.     For  they  are  false 
and  uncharitable  assertions.     We  have  not  denied 
the  Scriptures;  we  have  not  denied  the  divinity  of 
Christ;  we  have  not  denied  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  our  Society.     We  highly  esteem  them,_and 
I  am  willing  to  suffer  for  them,  even  to  the  laying 
down  of  my  natural  life;   but  I  am   not  willing  to 
commute  the  independence  of  this  Yearly  Meeting 
nor  to  crouch  to  any  associations  of  men."  *  *  *  *  He 
concluded  his  remarks  as  follows:  «I  am  willing  now 
to  return  to  the  first  proposition,  whether  the  epistle 
from  Friends  of  Philadelphia  shall  be  received   and 
whether  we  can  acknowledge  them  as  our  brethren 
or  not  ?     For  my  part,  I  can." 

"A  very  general  expression  of  unity  with  Friends 
of  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting,  and  in  favor  of  an- 


SEPARATION   IN    BALTIMORE.  311 


*>> 


swering  their  epistle,  now  took  place.  A  commit- 
tee was  accordingly  appointed  to  answer  the  three 
friendly  epistles,  viz.,  those  from  Philadelphia,  Indi- 
ana, and  New  York ;  and  the  clerks  were  directed  to 
prepare  a  suitable  minute  expressive  of  the  judgment 
of  the  meeting."1 

On  Fourth-day  afternoon,  Edward  Stabler  proposed 
that  the  epistle  produced  by  the  representatives  at  a 
former  sitting  should  be  again  referred  to  them,  with 
instructions  to  alter  or  amend  it  as  they  might  see 
proper.  After  some  discussion,  the  proposition  was 
agreed  to.  It  was  then  concluded  to  adjourn  to  the 
next  morning,  but  before  the  minute  to  tbat  effect 
was  read,  James  Gillingham  rose  and  said  it  was 
now  obvious  that  this  meeting  had  separated  itself 
from  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  he  proposed  that 
all  who  were  in  favor  of  holding  Baltimore  Yearly 
Meeting  on  its  original  foundation,  should  meet  the 
next  morning  at  9  o'clock,  at  the  McKendrean  school- 
house.  Hugh  Balclerston  concurred  in  the  proposi- 
tion, and  advised  all  who  were  in  favor  of  it  to  keep 
their  seats  till  the  close  of  the  meeting,  to  prevent 
any  disorder.  At  the  close  of  the  sitting,  these  two 
individuals  went  into  the  women's  meeting,  which 
was  still  in  session,  to  notify  them  in  like  manner. 

On  Fifth-day  morning,  the  meeting  assembled,  and 
proved  to  be  large.  Only  two  representatives,  out 
of  fifty-three,  were  missing,  and  the  largest  estimated 
number  of  the  orthodox  who  had  withdrawn  was 
one  hundred  and  thirty-five,  including  both  sexes.2 


1  Stenographer's  Report,  Friend  or  Advocate  of  Truth,  Vol.  II. 
pp.  110,  112. 

2  Test,  cf  Halliday  Jackson,  Foster's  Report,  II.  70. 


312  SEPARATION    IN    BALTIMORE. 

Amons:  these  were  some  whose  absence  was  mourned 
by  many.  The  honorable  conduct  of  the  orthodox 
brethren  in  retiring  without  making  confusion,  was 
commended  by  Thomas  Wetherald.  He  considered 
their  withdrawal,  with  the  avowed  intention  of  set- 
ting up  another  meeting,  a  relinquishment  of  their 
rights  of  membership ;  and  having  seen  the  bad  ef- 
fects of  disoicnments  in  other  Yearly  meetings,  he 
thought  some  step  ought  to  be  taken  to  avoid  the 
unpleasant  consequences  which  had  resulted  from 
this  mode  of  procedure.1 

This  suggestion  was  adopted  by  the  meeting,  and 
a  minute  to  that  effect  was  made;  stating  moreover, 
that  "such  persons  cannot  be  again  restored  without 
making  application  to  the  Monthly  Meeting  within 
the  limits  of  which  they  reside,  requesting  to  be  re- 
instated in  their  rights  of  membership."  It  may  be 
added,  that  in  such  cases  of  restoration,  no  acknowl- 
edgments are  required* 

The  Yearly  Meeting  was  continued  by  adjourn- 
ments until  Sixth-day  afternoon.  The  representa- 
tives again  produced  the  epistle  divested  of  its 
objectionable  passages,  and  after  some  further 
amendments,  it  was  adopted  and  addressed,  "To 
the  Quarterly.  Monthly,  and  Preparative  Meetings, 
which  constitute  this  Yearly  Meeting,  and  to  our 
members  individually."  In  this  document  the  fol- 
lowing passage  occurs.  "Divers  charges  have  been 
circulated  against  us:  such  as  that  we  contemn  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  and  deny  the  divinity  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.     Which  charges, 


1  The  Friend  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.  II.  p.  191. 


THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION.  313 

however  strenuously  urged,  and  however  often  reit- 
erated, are  nevertheless  unfounded." 

In  accordance  with  a  proposition  brought  up  from 
Fairfax  Quarterly  Meeting,  a  rule  of  discipline  was 
adopted,  that  elders  should  be  appointed  by  the 
Monthly  meetings  at  least  once  in  three  years,  and 
members  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  by  the  Yearly 
Meeting  annually. 

The  separation  did  not  extend  to  the  Yearly  meet- 
ings of  Kew  England,  ^North  Carolina,  and  Virginia, 
which  are  of  the  class  called  Orthodox.  The  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Virginia,  being  verv  small,  has  since  been 
discontinued,  and  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  New  Eng- 
land has  been  divided  by  the  secession  of  those  called 
"Wilburites. 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION. 

At  the  time  of  the  separation,  the  Society  of  Friends 
in  America  was  in  possession  of  a  large  amount  of 
real  and  personal  estate,  generally  held  in  trust  for 
religious  and  educational  purposes.  .  It  became  a 
question  of  deep  importance,  how  and  by  whom  this 
property  should  be  held,  and  unhappily  it  proved  to 
be,  in  some  of  the  States,  a  subject  of  litigation. 

The  following  remarks  by  a  distinguished  member 
of  the  bar  in  Philadelphia  are  deemed  appropriate. 
"If  Friends  could  have  come  to  an  amicable  and  equi- 
table division  of  property,  they  would  have  set  an  ex- 
ample to  the  world  of  more  value  than  the  property 
to  be  thereby  sacrificed,  fitting  to  be  recorded  with 
IV  — 27 


314  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

the  "history  of  their  leading  and  glorious  triumphs  of 
principle,  when  they  treated  with  and  paid  the  In- 
dians for  lands  that  by  chartered  right  were  already 
the  Proprietary's;  when  as  pioneers  they  secured 
religious  toleration ;  and  when,  obedient  to  the  calls 
of  humanity,  they  enfranchised  their  slaves,  and  zeal- 
ously co-operated  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade. 

"  In  scriptural  authority,  they  had  before  them  the 
beautiful  and  persuasive  example  of  Abraham  and  Lot, 
—  each  willing  to  yield  to  the  other  the  right  to  take 
to  the  right  or  to  the  left,  for  the  enjoyment  of  what 
a  bountiful  Providence  had  amply  supplied  for  their 
flocks  and  herds,  and  their  households  and  people. 

"In  respect  to  the  legal  right  so  to  have  adjusted 
the  rights  of  property,  when  it  is  considered  that  it  is 
a  cherished  principle  of  our  jurisprudence  to  favour 
amicable  settlements,  and  that  family  compacts  made 
for  the  determination  of  controversy,  are  upheld  as  of 
sacred  obligation,  because  they  avert  litigation  and 
preserve  peace,  it  could  hardly  be  doubted  that  the 
tribunals  of  justice  would  meet  in  the  same  spirit  and 
most  willingly  affirm  the  amicable  treaties  of  divided 
religious  associations.     Can  this  be  questioned  when 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  has  reiterated  the 
recommendation  that  the  litigant  members  of  a  di- 
vided religious  society  should  '  part  in  peace,  having 
settled  their  claims  to  the  property  on  the  basis  of 
mutual  and   liberal  concession,'   and   expressed  the 
confident  trust  that  even  in  the  contingency  of  revo- 
lution, 'to  the  justice  and  forbearance  of  the  majority 
of  the  association,  whose  very  object  is  to  deal  justly, 
love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly,  the  minority  cannot 
appeal  in  vain'?    1  W.  and  S.,  40." ' 

1  Memoir  of  Philip  and  Kachel  Price,  p.  123. 


THE    BURIAL-GROUNDS.  315 

Friends  composing  the  Yearly  meetings  of  Phila- 
delphia, New  York,  and  Ohio  acted  upon  the  princi- 
ples established  in  their  rules  of  discipline,  and  pro- 
posed to  their  Orthodox  brethren  an  equitable  division 
of  the  property  in  proportion  to  their  respective  num- 
bers; but  these  offers  were  generally  declined,  and 
suits  at  law  were  instituted  by  the  Orthodox,  discredit- 
able to  themselves,  and  oppressive  to  their  brethren. 

In  most  of  the  country  meetings  belonging  to  Phila- 
delphia Yearly  Meeting,  the  Orthodox  party  being  a 
small  minority,  withdrew  and  left  Friends  in  posses- 
sion of  the  meeting-houses:  but  the  burial-grounds 
continued  to  be  used  in  common  without  either  party 
attempting  to  exclude  the  others,  or  interfere  with 
their  arrangements  in  the  interment  of  their  dead. 

In  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  the  five  Monthly  meet- 
ings, viz.,  the  Northern  District,  the  Southern  Dis- 
trict, the  Middle  District,  the  Western  District,  and 
Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting,  purchased,  in  the 
year  1818,  a  lot  on  Schuylkill  7th  and  Mulberry 
streets,  for  the  use  of  all  these  meetings,  and  it  was  for 
that  purpose  vested  in  fifteen  trustees,  three  of  whom 
were  appointed  by  each  Monthly  meeting.  Subse- 
quently this  lot  was  designated  as  a  burial-place  for 
the  common  use  of  the  five  Monthly  meetings.  In  order 
to  the  preservation  and  regulation  of  this  cemetery, 
two  persons  were  appointed  by  each  Monthly  meet- 
iug,  forming  a  committee  of  ten. 

In  addition  to  this  general  committee,  each  Monthly 
meeting  appointed  a  burial  committee,  under  whose 
orders  the  bodies  of  deceased  Friends  w^ere  interred 
in  the  Western  Burial  Ground.  Under  this  arrange- 
ment  the  five  Monthly  meetings  enjoyed  the  common 
use  of  the  property  in  harmony  for  some  years. 


316  THE    BURIAL-GKOUNDS. 

But  after  the  alleged  laving  down  of  Green  Street 
Monthly  Meeting  by  the  Orthodox  section  of  Phila- 
delphia Quarter,  as  already  related,  the  two  members 
of  the  committee  of  ten  appointed  by  Green  Street 
Meeting  were  not  recognized  by  the  other  members 
of  that  committee.  Except  in  a  few  instances,  the 
orders  for  the  interment  of  its  deceased  members, 
given  by  their  burial  committee,  were  disregarded  by 
the  superintendent  of  the  burial-ground,  acting  under 
the  supposed  authority  of  a  majority  of  the  committee 
often;  the  gate  was  closed  against  approaching  fu- 
nerals of  its  late  members,  and  in  order  to  their  inter- 
ment, the  Friends  of  Green  Street  found  it  necessary 
to  enter  the  enclosure  by  means  of  ladders,  and  force 
the  fastenings  from  the  gate.1  It  is  proper  here  to 
remark,  that  this  method  of  entering  would  not  have 
been  necessary,  had  the  members  of  Green  Street 
Meeting  been  willing  to  receive  orders  for  the  inter- 
ment of  their  dead  from  the  burial  committee  of  the 
Northern  District,  to  which  meeting  they  had,  with- 
out their  consent,  been  professedly  transferred  by  the 
Orthodox  section  of  Philadelphia  Quarter.  The  Green 
Street  Friends  could  not,  without  a  surrender  of  their 
just  rights,  acknowledge  in  any  way  the  laying  down 
of  their  meeting  or  the  transfer  of  their  membership; 
for  the  congregation  still  remained  almost  entire,  the 
orthodox  who  had  left  it  were  so  few  as  to  make  no 
perceptible  difference ;  the  Monthly  Meeting  was 
recognized  as  a  branch  of  Abington  Quarter,  the 
same  discipline  was  still  administered,  and  the  same 
doctrines  professed,  as  before  the  separation. 

In  order  to  obviate  the  necessity  of  breaking  the 

1  Opinion  of  Judge  King,  see  Fd.  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.  I.  pp. 
179  to  185. 


THE    BURIAL-GROUNDS.  317 

lock  to  gain  admission  for  the  interment  of  their  dead, 
Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting,  through  its  commit- 
tee, made  application  to  five  of  the  trustees,  in  whom 
the  property  was  vested,  and  obtained  from  them  per- 
mission to  put  a  gate  in  the  Western  wall  of  the 
burial-ground,  and  to  take  any  other  measures  that 
might  secure  to  the  meeting  the  right  of  interment  in 
conformity  with  the  deed  of  trust,  recognizing  a  com- 
mon right  with  the  other  Monthly  meetings  of  Phila- 
delphia, "it  being  understood  that  the  Friends  of  all 
the  other  Monthly  meetings  should  enjoy  the  privi- 
lege of  entrance  equally  with  the  Friends  of  Green 
Street."1 

In  pursuance  of  this  design,  on  the  31st  of  5th 
month,  1828,  Edmund  Shotwell,  Joseph  Lukens,  and 
Charles  Middleton  (members  of  Green  Street  Meet- 
ing) proceeded,  with  the  assistance  of  two  colored 
men,  to  put  a  gate  in  the  wall  of  the  burial-ground; 
and  were  soon  after  summoned  to  appear  before  the 
Mayor  of  the  city,  "to  answer  the  commonwealth  on 
a  charge  founded  on  the  affirmation  and  information 
of  Jeremiah  Willets  and  others,  with  tumultuously 
assembling  and  committing  a  breach  of  the  public 
peace,  by  forcibly  pulling  down  a  portion  of  the  brick 
wall  around  the  Friends'  (Western)  burying-ground." 
Jeremiah  Willets  was  a  member  of  the  JSTorthern  Dis- 
trict Meeting,  and  it  appeared  that  previous  to  enter- 
ing his  complaint,  he  had  held  a  consultation  with 
some  of  the  most  prominent  members  of  the  Ortho- 
dox party,  at  the  office  of  their  legal  adviser,  Horace 
Binney. 

The  Mayor,  when  Shotwell  and  the  other  defend- 
ants  appeared   before   him,  required  them  to  enter 

1  Opinion  of  Judge  King. 
27*  IV  — 2  Q 


318  THE    BURIAL-GROUNDS. 

into  recognizance  to  keep  the  peace,  although  there 
was  no  evidence  of  any  violence  having  been  com- 
mitted or  intended.  The  parties  accused,  being  con- 
scious that  they  had  been  in  the  quiet  and  peaceable 
pursuit  of  their  civil  rights,  and  that  the  decision  of 
the  Mayor  was  unjust,  declined  to  enter  into  the  re- 
cognizance, and  were  committed  to  jail.  After  a 
detention  of  five  days  in  prison,  they  were  brought, 
by  a  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  before  Judge  King,  and 
a  patient  investigation  of  the  case  being  made,  he  dis- 
charged them.1 

The  Orthodox  leaders,  being  thus  defeated  in  their 
design,  and  bent  upon  litigation,  instituted,  in  the 
Seventh  month  1828,  an  action  for  trespass  against 
the  same  defendants.2  The  suit  was  brought  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  name  of  the 
fifteen  trustees  in  whom  the  title  of  the  burying- 
ground  was  vested  for  the  use  of  the  five  Monthly 
meetings  ;  but  five  of  the  trustees  published  a  protest 
against  the  use  of  their  names  as  plaintiffs,  declaring 
that  the  suit  was  commenced  without  their  knowl- 
edge or  consent,  and  "  against  the  established  order 
and  discipline  of  the  Society  of  Friends." 

The  members  of  Green  Street  Monthly  Meeting, 
and  Friends  in  connection  with  them  throughout 
the  Society,  were  averse  to  litigation,  and  disposed 
to  make  an  amicable  and  equitable  adjustment  of 
their  claims  in  regard  to  property.  This  disposition 
they  had  manifested  on  numerous  occasions,  and  now, 
being  solicitous  to  avoid  a  lawsuit,  they  authorized 
their  counsel,  C.  J.  Ingersoll,  Thomas  Kittera,  and 
Eli  K.  Price,  to  make  an  amicable  overture  to  the 

1  Opinion  of  Judge  King.     2  Fd.  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.  I.  205. 


PROPOSED   AMICABLE    ADJUSTMENT.  319 

prosecutors.  This  was  done  accordingly,  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  the  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiffs,  from  which 
the  following  passage  is  quoted :  "  Under  existing 
circumstances,  divided  as  they  are,  it  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected that  they  can  meet  together  as  formerly  :  and 
the  only  hope  of  an  ultimate  union,  is,  to  allow  each 
other,  without  interruption,  to  conduct  their  business 
and  their  worship.  In  order  to  this,  we  submit, 
without  prejudice  to  our  clients'  rights  in  an}'  event, 
the  following  as  a  basis  of  accommodation,  which  we 
trust  will  be  found  acceptable,  and  have  no  doubt 
would  be  instantly  acceded  to  by  our  clients :  that  a 
fair  and  equitable  apportionment  of  the  real  estate 
and  property,  held  by  trustees  for  society  purposes  in 
this  district,  be  made  between  the  two  parties  in  pro- 
portion to  the  numbers  belonging  to  each,  counting 
all  such  as  were  acknowledged  members  at  a  period 
anterior  to  the  adoption  of  measures  by  one  party 
purporting  to  disown  the  members  of  the  other  ;  say 
the  April  Yearly  Meeting  of  1827.  The  discipline 
of  this  Society,  which  enjoins  the  amicable  adjust- 
ment of  these  differences,  seems  to  make  settlement 
peculiarly  proper  in  this  instance,  and  greatly  desired 
by  the  large  party  who  have  intrusted  to  us  the  man- 
agement of  their  cause." 

The  counsel  for  the  plaintiffs  rejected  this  friendly 
overture,  and  we  may  reasonably  conclude  they  did 
so  under  instructions  from  their  clients. 

Another  proposition  was  then  made  by  the  defend- 
ants, through  their  counsel,  to  this  effect :  That,  in 
order  "to  put  a  stop  to  the  interruption  of  funerals 
and  laceration  of  feeling  which  occur  whenever  a 
burial  takes  place,  that  the  dead  be  interred  in  the 
burial-grounds  of  the  Society,   by  such   persons  as 


320  THE    PROPOSAL    EEJECTED. 

may  have  the  care  of  them,  upon  orders  to  be  issued 
in  the  same  form  and  manner  as  was  usual  before  the 
dispute  arose.  This  proposition  we  make  without 
prejudice  to  our  clients'  rights  if  not  accepted,  and 
if  acceded  to,  we  agree  on  their  behalf  that  the  arrange- 
ment shall  be  without  prejudice  to  the  asserted  rights  of 
either  party." 

This  reasonable  and  humane  proposition  was  also 
rejected  by  the  inexorable  prosecutors,  who  replied 
through  their  counsel  as  follows:  "As  Green  Street 
Meeting  is  not  now  recognized  as  a  Monthly  Meeting 
agreeable  to  the  discipline  and  usages  of  the  Society 
of  Friends,  we  are  not  authorized  to  say  that  orders 
from  that  source  will  be  received  by  those  having  the 
care  of  the  burial-grounds."1 

Soon  after  this  suit  was  commenced,  another  was 
instituted  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  by 
the  Orthodox  party,  having  for  its  object  the  eject- 
ment of  Green  Street  Friends  from  their  meeting- 
house and  lots.  The  prosecutors  were  certain  pre- 
tended trustees  appointed  by  the  Northern  District 
Monthly  Meeting,  and  at  their  instigation  the  sher- 
iffs went  to  Green  Street  meeting-house  on  the  17th 
of  the  7th  month,  1828.  and  served  the  following 
Friends  with  process  as  they  came  out  of  the  meeting 
held  that  day,  to  wit,  Joseph  Lukens,  George  AVool- 
ley,  Joseph  Warner,  Gabriel  Middleton,  and  Edmund 
Shotwell.2 

The  two  suits  were  continued  on  the  docket  of  the 
Supreme  Court  until  the  year  1831,  when  they  were 
withdrawn  and  the  costs  paid  by  the  Orthodox  prose- 
cutors.3 


1  Fd.  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.  I.  p.  282. 
See  Fd.  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.  I.  p.  231.   3  Ibid.  Vol.  IV.  175 


2 


THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION.  321 

We  may  safely  infer  what  would  have  been  the  de- 
cision of  that  court,  from  the  judgment  it  gave  in 
the  year  1829,  in  a  cause  at  issue  between  the  two 
sections  of  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  Philadelphia. 
"By  the  majority  of  the  court,  the  right  of  the  mi- 
nority of  the  congregation  to  have  a  charter  under 
the  name  of  the  First  Baptist  Church,  was  established ; 
and  at  the  same  time  an  equal  right  on  the  part  of  a 
majority  to  obtain  a  charter  under  the  same  name, 
was  admitted,  and  a  charter  for  them  was  accordingly 
submitted  for  the  certificate  of  the  judges.  This  de- 
cision was  made  expressly  on  the  ground  that  the 
grant  of  a  charter  under  the  name  of  the  First  Bap- 
tist Church,  could  in  no  respect  affect  the  rights  of 
property. 

"After  the  opinions  were  delivered,  the  Chief 
Justice  made  some  very  just  and  forcible  remarks  to 
the  parties,  earnestly  recommending  to  them  an  ami- 
cable adjustment  of  their  differences  in  regard  to  prop- 
erty. It  was  evident  to  him,  as  was  usually  the  case 
in  these  religious  disputes,  that  it  was  a  contest  for 
property  carried  on  in  an  angry  and  bitter  spirit  un- 
becoming the  Christian  character.  The  decision  now 
made  would  confer  no  rights  of  property.  These 
stand  as  they  did  before.  What  is  the  rule  of  justice 
which  should  govern  these  parties  is  plain  and  pal- 
pable to  every  person  of  any  common  sense.  It  is, 
that  the  majority  should  continue  to  hold  the  property  ; 
but  it  is  their  duty  to  make  compensation  to  the  mi- 
nority, in  proportion  to  the  respective  numbers  of  the 
parties.  This  minority  have  not  been  deprived  of 
their  civil  rights,  by  an  expulsion  from  the  church, 
by  a  majority  exercising  an  arbitrary  power  for  party 
purposes.     If  the  majority  do  not  do  justice  on  this 

2Q2 


322  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

plain  principle  of  natural  equity,  the  minority  may 
pursue  their  legal  remedy,  in  which  the  charter  will 
only  be  a  means  of  facility ;  when  it  will  probably 
turn  out,  that  they  will  be  entitled  to  their  propor- 
tionate interest  in  the  church  property.  An  adjust- 
ment on  this  principle  should  be  made  without  fur- 
ther litigation.  The  frequency  of  these  religious 
disputes  is  calculated,  not  only  to  lay  waste  the  stand- 
ing of  the  parties,  but  to  cut  to  the  very  core  the 
cause  of  the  common  Master,  whom  all  profess  with 
so  much  zeal  to  serve."1 

This  opinion  of  the  Chief  Justice  was  equally  appli- 
cable to  the  case  of  the  separation  in  Philadelphia 
Yearly  Meeting.  "The  majority,"  he  says,  "should 
continue  to  hold  the  property,  and  make  compensa- 
tion to  the  minority  in  proportion  to  the  respective 
numbers  of  the  parties."  But  the  Orthodox  section 
refused  to  settle  on  this  equitable  principle,  and  not 
content  with  holding  the  most  valuable  part  of  the 
property,  they  —  the  minority  of  the  Yearly  Meeting — ■ 
claimed  the  whole. 

The  course  pursued  by  the  Orthodox  party  in  order  to 
obtain  the  entire  control  of  the  Asylum  for  the  Insane 
at  Frankford  demands  our  attention.  This  institution 
was  founded  by  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends, 
and,  according  to  the  provisions  of  its  constitution,  none 
but  members  of  this  religious  society  were  eligible  to 
office  or  even  to  membership  in  it.  The  estate  of  the 
institution  was  held  in  trust  by  twelve  members,  and 
the  government  of  the  Asylum  was  intrusted  to  twenty 
managers,  a  treasurer,  and  a  clerk,  elected  annually 
from  among  the  contributors.  At  the  annual  meet- 
ing of  the  contributors,  in  the  spring  of  1828,  it  ap- 

1  Fd.  or  Adv.  of  Truth,  Vol.  II.  p.  128. 


MORE   LITIGATION.  323 

peared  that  the  managers,  a  majority  of  whom  were 
orthodox,  had  excluded  from  the  board  two  of  their 
members,  Charles  Townsend  and  Joseph  Warner, 
highly  respectable  Friends,  on  the  ground  that  they 
had  been  disowned  by  the  Orthodox  section  of  the 
Society  ;  and  the  same  party  had  brought  forward  the 
names  of  seventy-six  new  contributors,  in  6rder,  by 
their  votes,  to  sanction  the  action  of  the  managers, 
and  control  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting.  By  this 
means  it  was  intended  to  exclude  not  only  from  the 
control,  but  from  the  benefits  of  the  institution,  all 
the  contributors  who  did  not  belong  to  the  Orthodox 
section  of  the  Society,  and  who  had  previously  con- 
stituted a  majority  of  the  association.  The  attempt, 
as  might  have  been  expected,  occasioned  much  ex- 
citement, and  the  meeting  was  broken  up  in  disorder.1 
But  the  Orthodox  party  persisted  in  their  determina- 
tion, and  ultimately  succeeded  in  depriving  a  large 
proportion  of  the  contributors  and  owners  of  the 
property  of  their  just  rights,  and  to  this  day  hold 
exclusive  possession  of  the  institution. 

In  the  Eleventh  month,  1828,  being  a  few  months 
subsequent  to  the  institution  of  the  two  lawsuits  in 
Pennsylvania,  the  Orthodox  party  filed  a  bill  in  Chan- 
cery in  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  which  was  under- 
stood to  be  with  a  view  to  establish  their  claim  to 
the  property  of  the  Society  of  Friends  in  that  State. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Yearly  Meeting,  which 
assembled  in  Philadelphia,  included  within  its  limits, 
before  the  separation,  all  the  meetings  of  Friends  in 
New  Jersey  as  well  as  most  of  those  in  Pennsylvania. 
The  leading  members  of  the  Orthodox  party  resided 

1  Test,  of  II.  Jackson,  Foster's  Report,  II.  122-128 ;  and  Cock- 
burn's  Review,  pp.  259-262. 


324  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

in  Philadelphia,  and  they  were  regarded  as  the  origi 
nators  of  this  lawsuit,  although  Joseph  Hendrickson, 
of  New  Jersey,  was  made  the  complainant.  The 
ostensible  object  of  the  suit  was  to  obtain  possession 
of  a  school-fund  belonging  to  Chesterfield  Prepara- 
tive Meeting,  held  at  Crosswicks,  Burlington  County, 
New  Jersey.  Of  this  fund  the  sum  of  2000  dollars 
was  lent  in  the  year  1821,  by  Jos.  Hendrickson,  treas- 
urer of  the  Crosswicks  school-fund,  to  Thos.  L.  Shot- 
well,  who  thereupon  gave  his  bond  for  the  same, 
secured  by  a  morto-asre  on  real  estate. 

In  the  12th  month,  1827,  a  separation  took  place  in 
Chesterfield  Preparative  Meeting,  when  the  orthodox 
party,  being  about  one  third  of  the  members,  with- 
drew to  another  house,  and  held  a  separate  meeting. 
Joseph  Hendrickson,  the  treasurer  of  the  school-fund, 
being  one  of  the  minority  that  withdrew,  the  larger 
body  appointed,  in  the  following  month,  Stacy  Decow 
as  his  successor,  and  directed  him  to  call  on  Hendrick- 
son for  the  moneys  and  bonds  he  held  as  treasurer  of 
the  meeting.  Hendrickson,  being  still  recognized  as 
treasurer  by  the  orthodox  meeting,  refused  to  give  up 
the  funds,  and  demanded  of  Thos.  L.  Shotwell  the 
amount  of  his  bond,  which  the  latter  declined  to  pay 
until  the  rightful  owner  should  be  ascertained.1 

In  the  bill  filed  by  Joseph  Hendrickson,  complain- 
ant, against  Thos.  L.  Shotwell,  he  avers,  that  the 
orthodox  party  to  which  he  belongs,  beli'eve  in  the 
Divinity  and  atonement  of  Christ  and  the  authenticity 
and  divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  —  doc- 
trines that  were  held  and  considered  fundamental  by 
the  ancient  Society  of  Friends.     He  says,  "  That  the 

1  Testimony  of  Saml.  Craft  and  Josiah  Gaskill,  Foster's  Rep., 
Vol.  I.  347,  and  Vol.  II.  p.  287. 


THE    PROPERTY   QUESTION.  325 

principal  difference  between  the  people  called  Qua- 
kers, and  other  Protestant  trinitarian  sects,  in  regard  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is,  that  the  latter  attach 
the  idea  of  individual  personage  to  the  three,  as  what 
they  consider  a  fair  logical  inference  from  the  doctrines 
expressly  laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  peo- 
ple called  Quakers,  on  the  other  hand,  considering  it  a 
mystery  beyond  finite,  human  conception,  take  up  the 
doctrine  as  expressly  laid  down  in  the  Scripture,  and 
have  not  considered  themselves  warranted  in  making 
deductions,  however  specious."  He  alleges,  more- 
over, that  the  party  which  he  calls  Hicksites,  do  not 
believe  in  these  fundamental  doctrines,  and  that  they 
have  separated  from  the  Society  of  Friends.  They 
"have  seceded,"  he  says,  "not  only  from  the  faith, 
but  from  the  religious  institutions  and  government 
of  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  the  ancient  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Philadelphia  being  continued  by  the  Or- 
thodox party  aforesaid,  they  are  identified  with  them 
in  regular  and  due  succession."  He  contends  that 
the  Orthodox  Preparative  Meeting  at  Crosswicks,  to 
which  he  belongs,  being  subordinate  to  the  ancient 
Yearly  Meeting  held  at  Arch  Street,  Philadelphia,  is 
the  rightful  owner  of  the  school-fund  in  question ; 
and  he  prays  the  court  for  a  decree  requiring  Thos. 
L.  Shotwell  to  account  to  him  for  the  amount  of  the 
bond. 

Stacy  Decow,  appointed  treasurer  of  the  school- 
fund  by  the  larger  body  of  Friends  at  Crosswicks, 
filed  a  bill  in  answer  to  the  Orthodox  claims,  in  which 
he  avers,  that  the  Society  of  Friends,  of  which  he  is  a 
member,  acknowledges  no  head  but  Christ,  and  no 
principle  of  authority  or  government  in  the  church 
but  the  love  and  power  of  God,  operating  on  the 

28 


326  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

heart,  and  thence  influencing  the  judgment,  and  pro- 
ducing a  unity  of  feeling,  brotherly  sympath}',  and 
condescension  to  each  other.  The  great  fundamental 
principle  of  the  Society  —  the  divine  light  and  power 
operating  on  the  soul  —  is  acknowledged  as  the  only 
bond  of  union.  Under  this  holy  influence  the  Society 
of  Friends  had  been  preserved  in  great  harmony 
until  lately,  when  a  few  individuals,  who  had  long 
been  continued  in  important  stations,  began  to  assume 
and  arrogate  an  authority  over  their  brethren  never 
delegated  to  them  :  that  they  attempted  to  impose  a 
creed  upon  the  Society,  and  their  design  being  frus- 
trated, they  enlisted  a  party  assuming  the  title  of  "  the 
Orthodox,"  and  a  line  of  discrimination  was  attempted 
to  be  drawn  in  the  meetings  of  Friends,  in  order  to  fill 
every  active  station  with  those  under  their  particular 
influence.  The  discipline  of  the  Society  was,  through 
their  means,  violated  or  prostrated  in  order  to  screen 
transgressors  of  their  own  party,  or  to  procure  the 
disownment,  upon  vague  and  frivolous  charges,  of 
those  who  resisted  their  spirit  and  measures.  Thus 
the}7  continued  to  monopolize  a  power  before  unknown 
to  the  Society,  —  tending  to  the  subversion  of  indi- 
vidual rights, — introducing  great  disorder  and  con- 
fusion, and  preventing  the  proper  administration  of 
the  discipline ;  particularly  in  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia, where  their  chief  strength  was  found. 

"These  acts,"  he  says,  "were  continued  until  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  1827,  when  their  oppressive  meas- 
ures were  pursued  to  such  an  extent,  that  it  reduced 
the  great  majority  of  the  Society  to  the  necessity  of 
submitting  to  their  usurped  domination,  engaging  in 
a  contest  which  would  be  productive  of  increased 
disorder,  or  retiring  from  the  said  minority  party, 


THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION.  327 

and  taking  measures  for  the  continuation  and  set- 
tling the  Yearly  Meeting  on  its  original  principles. 
The  first  course  would  have  been  a  criminal  aban- 
donment of  their  rights  and  those  of  their  poster- 
ity,—  the  second  would  have  been  subversive  of  their 
religious  principles, —  the  third,  however,  was  an  in- 
alienable right,  guaranteed  by  the  civil  institutions  of 
the  country,  and  consistent  with  the  original  ground 
on  which  the  Yearly  Meeting  was  established.  Thus 
by  the  mutual  agreement  and  consent  of  Monthly 
and  Quarterly  meetings,  the  Yearly  Meeting  has 
been  continued,  and  is  again  settled  on  the  principles 
and  according  to  the  manner  of  its  first  institution, 
comprising  a  very  large  majority  of  its  former  mem- 
bers,—  'who  are  united  in  the  same  system  of  disci- 
pline—  maintaining  the  same  testimonies,  and  hold- 
ing the  same  religious  faith  as  their  forefather?  and  the 
ancient  Society  of  Friends  did, — leaving  to  their  own 
course,  undisturbed  by  them,  those  disorderly  per- 
sons who  adopted  an  opposite  and  adverse  Une  of 
procedure.'  " 

Stacy  Decow,  in  his  answer,  disclaims,  on  behalf 
of  the  Society  to  which  he  belongs,  the  name  of 
Hicksites, —  a  name  never  assumed  nor  acquiesced  in 
by  them, —  for  they  claim  that  only  of  Friends.  They 
"  deny  being  the  followers  of  any  man  or  set  oi  men, 
simply  claiming  to  be  the  humble  disciples  and  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  the  great  Head  of  the  Church;" 
and  allege  that  they  still  hold  and  are  endeavoring 
to  maintain  and  support  the  doctrines,  fundamental 
religious  principles,  discipline,  and  rules  of  govern- 
ment of  the  ancient,  religious  Society  of  Friends. 
He  further  insists  that  the  rights  of  property  are 
sacred  and  inviolate,  and  cannot  be  taken  from  an 


828  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

individual  or  a  religious  association  without  their 
consent, —  and  more  especially  that  it  cannot  be 
made  to  depend  on  the  test  of  any  religious  creed, 
framed  after  its  vesting,  and  artfully  prepared  by  a 
minority  to  answer  its  purposes.1 

In  a  bill  of  Interpleader  filed  by  Shotwell,  in  an- 
swer to  the  allegations  of  Hendrickson  and  the  Or- 
thodox party,  he  says,  "  the  Preparative  Meeting  of 
Friends  at  Crosswicks  claim  to  be  at  least  two-thirds 
of  the  original  subscribers  and  contributors  to  the 
said  school-fund,  and  of  their  lawful  representatives," 
and  a  lawful  majority  of  the  Friends  or  people  called 
Quakers  in  the  township  of  Chesterfield.  Neverthe- 
less, they  have  made  overtures  for  an  amicable  ad- 
justment in  relation  to  property  conformably  to  the 
principles  of  justice  and  equity;  "but  the  Orthodox 
party  have  treated  these  offers  with  neglect,  declaring 
themselves  alone  to  be  the  true  Orthodox  church  in 
which  all  the  rights  and  property  of  the  Society  are 
vested."2 

In  pursuance  of  these  "Pleadings  in  Chancery,"  a 
great  mass  of  testimony  from  witnesses  of  both  par- 
ties was  taken  and  published  in  two  octavo  volumes, 
by  Jeremiah  J.  Foster,  Master  and  Examiner  in 
Chancery.  Frequent  reference  has  been  made  to 
this  testimony  in  the  preceding  chapters,  as  furnish- 
ing the  best  evidence  we  have  in  relation  to  the 
causes  and  manner  of  the  separation. 

The  testimony  of  the  Orthodox  witnesses,  as  well 
as  their  bills  in  Chancery,  dwelt  much  upon  the  doc- 
trines they  held,  claiming,  on  that  ground,  that  they 

1  Decow's  Answer  to  Bill  of  Interpleader,  Foster's  Report,  Vol. 
I.  pp.  40  to  54. 

2  Bill  of  Interpleader,  Foster's  Report,  Vol.  I.  pp.  15,  L.. 


THE    PR0PEKTY    QUESTION.  329 

were  the  rightful  successors  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  and  imputing  to  their  opponents,  repre- 
sented by  Stacy  Decow,  erroneous  doctrines  and  vio- 
lations of  the  rules  of  discipline.  The  witnesses  ex- 
amined on  the  part  of  Decow,  the  defendant,  while 
denying  the  charges  made  by  the  Orthodox,  and  as- 
serting in  general  terms  that  they  held  the  Christian 
principles  professed  by  the  early  Friends,  refused 
to  answer  interrogatories  in  relation  to  theological 
questions  or  doctrinal  points,  which  they  considered 
improper  to  be  examined  by  a  temporal  tribunal.1 
In  this  course  they  were  sustained  by  their  counsel, 
one  of  whom,  Eli  K.  Price,  objected  to  such  ques- 
tions. He  said,  in  reference  to  the  Society  of 
Friends,  "  It  has  never  adopted  a  creed  as  the  terms 
of  the  communion  of  its  members:  therefore  what 
an  individual  under  examination  here  might  state  to 
be  the  doctrines  of  the  Society,  would  only  be  his 
own  opinions  of  what  they  are,  and  not  any  conclu- 
sive evidence  upon  the  subject.  And  we  have  the 
authority  of  the  opposing  witnesses,  that  the  Society, 
as  a  religious  body,  is  not  responsible  for  the  writings 
of  its  members,  which  have  not  been  approved  by  a 
meeting  for  sufferings.  If  the  testimony  of  any  wit- 
ness could  go  for  more  than  his  own  opinion,  it 
would  be  to  establish  for  his  brethren  something  in 
the  nature  of  a  creed,  which  he  has  no  authority  to 
do."2 

The  decision  of  the  Court  of  Chancery  was  in  fa- 
vor of  Hendrickson  and  the  Orthodox  party.  The 
two  judges,  Ewing  and  Drake,  pursuing  different 
lines  of  argument,  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion. 

1  Testimony  of  Abraham  Lower,  Foster's  Report,  I.  381. 
a  Foster's  Report,  I.  p.  476. 
28*  2R 


4 

830  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

Chief  Justice  Ewing,  after  reviewing  the  evidence 
in  relation  to  the  separation,  concludes  that  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  which  convened  in 
1827  and  closed  its  session  to  meet  again  at  the 
usual  time  next  year,  was  the  true  yearly  meeting  up 
to  the  time  of  its  adjournment.  John  Comly  by  con- 
tinuing to  act  as  assistant  clerk  recognized  it  as  such, 
and  the  Quarterly  meetings  recognized  it  also,  by 
paying  their  several  quotas  of  the  sum  directed  to  be 
raised  to  assist  Friends  in  North  Carolina.  "The 
Yearly  Meeting,"  he  says,  "having  convened  and 
closed  in  April,  1827,  could  not  again  convene,  nor 
could  any  body  possessing  its  powers  and  authorities 
convene  until  the  same  month  of  the  succeeding 
year  1828.  The  place  of  meeting  was  fixed  by  the 
voice  of  the  Yearly  Meeting,  which  alone  had  the 
authority  in  this  respect,  and  alone  could  change  it." 
"There  is  no  provision  in  the  constitution  for  an 
intermediate,  or,  as  it  is  commonly  denominated, 
Special  meeting,  nor  is  authority  given  to  the  clerk, 
to  any  portion  of  the  members,  or  invested  anywhere 
else,  to  call  such  a  meeting.  Hence,  it  clearly  fol- 
lows, that,  according  to  the  constitution,  the  Yearly 
Meeting  could  not  again  assemble  until  1828."  *  *  *  * 
For  these  and  other  reasons  stated  by  the  judge,  he 
concludes  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  which  assembled 
at  Arch  Street  house  in  1828,  was  Philadelphia 
Yearly  Meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  that 
the  Preparative  Meeting  of  Chesterfield,  connected 
with  and  subordinate  to  it,  was  entitled  to  the  school- 
fund.  He  rejoiced  that  he  was  not  constrained  to 
inquire  into  the  charges  of  departure  from  the  doc- 
trines of  Friends,  so  freely  made  against  Green  Street 
Meeting,  but  maintained  the  right  of  the  court  to  as- 


m 

THE    PKOPEKTY   QUESTION.  331 

certain,  by  competent  evidence,  what  are  the  religious 
principles  of  any  man  or  set  of  men,  when,  as  may 
frequently  be  the  case,  civil  rights  are  thereon  to 
depend,  or  thereby  to  be  decided.1 

Associate  Justice  Drake,  after  alluding  to  the  sepa- 
ration in  Chesterfield  Preparative  Meeting,  and  the 
withdrawal  of  the  orthodox  minority,  proceeds  to 
say,  "If  this  Preparative  Meeting  were  an  independent 
body,  acting  without  the  influence  of  any  conventional 
principle  operating  upon  this  point,  the  act  of  the 
minority  on  this  occasion  would  not  affect  the  pow- 
ers of  the  majority  who  remained  in  session,  how- 
ever it  might  expose  itself  and  the  members  com- 
posing it  to  disabilities.  But  the  right  to  make 
appointments,  and  to  exercise  the  other  functions  of 
the  Preparative  Meeting,  would  still  continue  with  the 
larger  'party.  But  the  Preparative  Meeting  is  not  an 
independent  body,  but  a  component  part  of  the  re- 
ligious Society  of  Friends."  The  Preparative  Meet- 
ing being  accountable  to  the  Monthly ;  the  Monthly 
to  the  Quarterly;  and  the  Quarterly  to  the  Yearly 
Meeting;  it  becomes  necessary  to  inquire  which  of 
the  two  bodies  claiming  to  be  the  Yearly  Meeting 
of  Philadelphia,  is  legally  entitled  to  the  rights  and 
properties  claimed  by  both.  In  conducting  this  in- 
vestigation, the  judge  maintains  that  the  court  may 
rightfully  inquire  into  the  badges  of  distinction  by 
which  the  Society  of  Friends  are  known ;  and  if  they 
are  characterized  by  established  doctrines,  it  may  in- 
quire what  these  are,  and  whether  they  belong  to 
one  or  both  of  these  parties.  He  then  proceeds  to 
review  the  evidence  by  which  Hendrickson  and  the 

1  See  Opinion  of  Judge  Ewing,  Report  of  Trial,  pp.  1  to  27. 


o 

332  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

Orthodox  party  endeavored  to  prove  their  agreement 
in  doctrine  with  the  founders  of  the  Society,  and 
says  this  agreement  had  not  been  denied  by  the  op- 
posite party.  "Decow,"  he  says,  "has  introduced 
several  witnesses,  who  testify,  and  no  doubt  conscien- 
tiously, that  they  believe  they  hold  the  ancient  faith 
of  Friends,  but  they  refuse  to  tell  us  what  this  faith 
is,  in  reference  to  these  enumerated  doctrines.  We 
cannot  give  much  wreight  to  opinion,  where  we  should 
have  facts.  The  belief  should  refer  to  specific  doc- 
trines, that  the  court  may  judge  as  well  as  the  wit- 
nesses, whether  it  was  the  ancient  faith  or  not." 
*  *  *  *  "The  court  will  not  force  either  party  in 
this  cause  to  declare  or  prove  their  religious  doc- 
trines. But  if  doctrines  be  important,  the  party 
which  would  avail  themselves  of  their  doctrines 
must  prove  them.  They  are  peculiarly  within  their 
knowledge,  and  although  they  may  have  the  right  to 
withhold  them,  yet  if  they  do,  they  cannot  expect  suc- 
cess to  their  cause.  The  money  must  be  awarded  to 
the  party  which  supports  by  proper  proofs  its  preten- 
sions to  it.  Under  this  view  of  the  case,  I  deem  it 
unnecessary  to  attempt  any  further  investigation  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  party  called  'Hicksites.'  And, 
if  ascertained,  I  certainly  would  not  inquire,  as  an 
officer  of  this  court,  whether  the}'  are  right  or  wrong. 
It  is  enough  that  it  is  not  made  to  appear  that  they 
correspond  with  the  religious  faith  of  the  Society  of 
Friends."  *  *  *  * 

"Without  coming  to  any  conclusion  wTith  respect 
to  their  doctrines,  I  am  of  opinion  that  this  fund 
should  be  awarded  to  that  meeting  which  has  shown, 
at  least  to  my  satisfaction,  that  they  agree  in  doctrine 


THE   PROPERTY   QUESTION.  333 

with  the  Society  of  Friends,  as  it  existed  at  the  origin 
of  this  trust."1 

The  decision  of  the  Court  of  Chancery  not  being 
satisfactory  to  Stacy  Decow  and  those  whom  he  re- 
presented, he  appealed  to  the  Governor  and  Council 
sitting  as  a  court  of  appeals  at  Trenton  in  the  7th 
month,  1833.  His  appeal  was  sustained  by  the  argu- 
ments of  his  counsel  Garret  D.  Wall  and  Samuel  L. 
Southard;  while  Hendrickson  and  the  orthodox  party 
had  for  their  counsel  George  Wood  and  Theodore  Fre- 
linghuysen.  The  importance  of  the  cause,  and  the 
high  reputation  of  the  counsel  employed,  attracted 
great  attention,  and  the  sittings  of  the  court  were 
attended  by  a  large  and  intelligent  audience  deeply 
interested  in  the  result. 

On  the  question  being  put,  "  Shall  the  decree  of 
the  chancellor  in  this  cause  be  affirmed  or  reversed?" 
the  votes  were,  seven  for  affirmance  and  four  for  re- 
versal, and  it  was  decided  that  each  party  pay  his  own 
costs. 

After  the  judgment  of  the  court  was  pronounced, 
affirming  the  chancellor's  decree,  the  President  made 
the  following  communication,  which  was  directed  to 
be  placed  on  the  minutes  of  the  court. 

"  The  court  would  most  earnestly  recommend  to 
the  parties  interested  in  the  present  controversy,  to 
make  a  speedy  and  amicable  adjustment  of  their  dis- 
putes and  difficulties.  We  have  always  regretted  to 
see  these  religious  controversies  brought  into  our 
courts  of  justice  ;  it  has  a  demoralizing  influence  on 
society;  is  a  stumbling-block  to  the  unconverted,  and 
a  source  of  great  joy  and  rejoicing  to  the  infidel.     It 


1  Report  of  Trial,  pp.  28  to  42. 
2R2 


\ 


334  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

is  therefore  the  sincere  desire  of  the  court,  that  all 
parties  concerned  will  make  every  effort  in  their 
power  to  effect  a  speedy  compromise  of  their  diffi- 
culties, on  such  just  and  equitable  principles  as  may 
properly  become  those  who  profess  to  be  influenced 
by  the  light  within,  the  Spirit  of  God  operating  on 
sincere  and  honest  hearts." 

Certificates  were  subsequently  given  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  court  (Elias  P.  Seeley,  Gov.  of  N.  J.)  and 
by  all  the  counsellors,  except  one,  that  the  decision 
in  this  case  was  not  founded  on  doctrinal  points.  And 
six  members  of  the  court  who  voted  for  affirming  the 
chancellor's  decree  certified  that  they  adopted  the 
same  course  of  reasoning  as  that  contained  in  the 
opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Ewing.  In  delivering  his 
opinion,  Judge  Ewing  had  said,  "I  hope  to  be  able 
to  continue  and  close  this  investigation  without  any 
inquiry  into  religious  faith  or  opinions." 

Although  the  decree  of  the  chancellor  was  affirmed, 
one  of  the  main  objects  of  the  Orthodox  party  in 
bringing  the  suit  was  not  attained :  the  closing  re- 
commendation of  the  court  of  appeals  granted  to  the 
larger  body  of  Friends  all  they  asked  or  desired;  that 
is,  a  compromise  of  their  conflicting  claims  on  just 
and  equitable  principles."  This  recommendation 
was  in  the  year  1836  embodied  in  a  law  passed  by 
the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey,  which  settled  the 
controversy  in  regard  to  the  property  of  the  Society 
in  that  State. 

It  enacts  and  provides  that,  "  In  case  of  any  divi- 
sion, secession  or  separation  now  existing  in  said 
unincorporated  Society  of  Friends  in  this  State  on 
conscientious  grounds,  when  both  parties  profess  to 
adhere  to  the  faith,  system  of  discipline,  constitution 


THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION".  335 

and  government  of  said  Society  when  in  unity,  that 
then  and  in  such  cases,  the  personal  and  real  estate 
of  whatever  kind  (excepting  burial-grounds)  of  said 
Society  held  for  its  use  in  trust  or  otherwise  shall  be 
divided  between  the  parties  in  such  division,  seces- 
sion or  separation,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  they 
were  tenants  in  common  of  said  estate,"  &c. 

Section  IV.  "That  the  burial-grounds  of  said  So- 
ciety when  in  unity  shall  forever  remain  free  and 
common  for  the  burial  of  the  members  of  either 
party  and  their  descendants,  the  same  as  if  no  divi- 
sion, secession  or  separation  had  been  made." 

Section  V.  "And  if  in  the  course  of  proceedings 
it  should  become  expedient  to  ascertain  the  number 
of  members  of  said  Society  connected  with  the  said 
parties  respectively,  and  any  member  thereof  shall 
be  under  the  age  of  21  years,  such  infant  shall  be 
counted  with  the  party  to  which  his  or  her  father 
belongs,  if  he  is  living,  and  if  not,  to  that  which  his 
or  her  mother  belongs,  if  living,  and  if  she  is  also  dead, 
with  the  party  to  which  his  or  her  guardian  belongs." 

The  Separation  took  place  in  New  York  Yearly 
Meeting  in  the  5th  month,  1828,  by  the  withdrawal 
of  the  Orthodox  party,  leaving  the  larger  body  in 
possession  of  the  meeting-houses  in  the  city.  In  the 
same  year  the  separation  extended  to  most  of  the 
Quarterly  and  Monthly  meetings  with  the  same  re- 
sult, a  very  large  portion  of  the  meeting-houses  being 
left  in  possession  of  Friends  by  the  withdrawal  of  the 
orthodox  minority.  In  the  city  of  New  York,  the 
Mouthly  Meeting  assembled  at  Rose  Street  House, 
6th  month  4th,  1828,  and  after  the  usual  time  pro- 
ceeded to  business.     Shortly  after  the  opening  of  the 


336  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION". 

meeting,  those  called  Orthodox,  being  a  small  mi- 
nority, voluntarily  withdrew,  when  the  meeting  unan- 
imously agreed  to  appoint  a  committee  to  inform 
those  who  had  seceded  that  Friends  "were  willing 
to  do  them  justice  in  relation  to  the  property  belong- 
ing to  the  Monthly  Meeting."  The  committee  was 
continued  four  years,  and  conferred  individually  with 
a  considerable  number  of  the  Orthodox  party,  assur- 
ing them  of  the  disposition  of  the  Monthly  Meeting 
to  do  them  justice,  and  inviting  them  to  accept  an 
equitable  arrangement;  but  they  could  effect  nothing; 
the  other  party  invariably  professing  to  consider 
themselves  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the  whole 
property  in  question. 

The  Meeting  for  Sufferings  in  New  York,  on  the 
6th  of  10th  month,  1828,  adopted  the  following  min- 
ute :  — 

"The  meeting  having  its  attention  turned  to  that 
part  of  the  extracts  received  from  the  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, which  advises,  'That  in  all  cases  where  the  rights 
of  property  are  involved,  Friends  carefully  maintain 
our  Christian  character  for  justice  and  equity,'  and 
in  order  to  carry  the  same  into  effect  the  follow- 
ing Friends  are  appointed  to  confer  with  those  who 
have  separated  from  us,  (commonly  called  Orthodox 
Friends,)  and  to  inform  them  that  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings  are  disposed  to  come  to  an  equitable  settle- 
ment in  relation  to  the  property  belonging  to  the 
Yearly  Meeting. 

"  Committee, —  Samuel  Mott,  Thomas  Everit,  Thos. 
Walker,  John  Barrow,  Nathan  Comstock,  Ja- 
cob Haviland,  and  Whitehead  Hicks. " 

To  the  above  extract  the  committee  subjoined  the 
following  notice:  —  "The   committee   above   named 


THE    PROPERTY   QUESTION.  837 

are  individually  ready  to  receive  proposals  from  those 
styled  Orthodox,  and  to  meet  them  whenever  desired 
so  to  do,  for  the  purpose  of  a  full  and  explicit  ar- 
rangement. 

"  Signed  on  behalf  of  the  committee,  Thos.  Everit." 

This  communication  was  sent  to  many  of  their 
leading  members,  and  also  published  in  a  periodical 
of  the  day;  but  after  a  lapse  of  two  years,  the  com- 
mittee had  to  report  that  no  reply  had  been  received. 

In  the  "Winter  of  1832,  an  influential  member  of 
the  Orthodox  party  intimated  to  a  Friend  that  they 
were  willing  to  confer  in  an  unofficial  manner  rela- 
tive to  the  property.  This  was  acceded  to,  and  ten 
of  each  party  met  together  for  the  purpose ;  when 
the  Orthodox  party  made  verbally  a  proposition  to 
this  effect:  That  one  of  the  meeting-houses  in  the 
city  should  be  surrendered  to  them  with  its  adjacent 
property, — that  they  should  continue  to  have,  as  they 
then  had,  the  use  of  the  burial-ground  in  common 
with  us,  and  "that  their  members  would  then  make 
a  verbal  declaration  to  us  that  with  these  possessions 
and  immunities  they  would  be  entirely  satisfied." 

The  ten  Friends  sent  them  in  the  12th  month,  1832, 
a  written  answer,  in  which,  after  reciting  the  propo- 
sition, they  stated  that  they  had  carefully  considered 
it,  and  made  a  pretty  general  exhibit  of  it  to  their 
fellow-members,  and  the  result  was,  that  it  would  be 
accepted,  provided  the  Orthodox  meeting  would  ex- 
ecute in  their  favor  a  quit-claim  deed  to  the  remain- 
der of  the  property  both  real  and  personal ;  "  and 
this,"  they  added,  "if  more  agreeable  to  you,  might 
be  done  through  the  name  of  an  individual  so  as  to 
avoid  the  commitment,  on  your  part,  of  a  particle  of 
your  religious  or  social  testimonies.  Far  be  it  from 
IV— 29 


338  THE   PROPEETY   QUESTION". 

us,  to  seek  to  draw  from  you  an  acknowledgment, 
in  any  the  most  remote  degree,  of  our  claim  to  the 
title  of  Friends  or  Quakers."  *  *  *  *  "We  trust 
you  will  recognize  in  the  above,  an  evidence  of  sin- 
cere amity  and  good  feeling  towards  your  Society,  in 
which  we  subscribe  ourselves  your  sincere  friends. 
Signed,  David  S.  Brown,  William  Wright,  Robert 
Hicks,  Isaac  T.  Hopper,  Thos.  Leggett,  Jr.,  Thos.  H. 
Legett,  Samuel  Willets,  Samuel  Hicks,  George  T. 
Trimble,  Nathan  Comstock." 

To  this  communication  they  received  no  reply. 

In  the  Tenth  month,  1833,  the  Orthodox  party  in 
New  York  filed  a  Bill  in  Chancery  for  the  recovery 
of  all  the  property,  with  an  application  for  an  injunc- 
tion, and  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  to  take  charge 
of  the  same ;  and  in  the  12th  month  following,  the 
Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends  in  the  city,  being  ap- 
prised of  this  movement,  appointed  a  committee,  with 
full  power  either  to  compromise  by  amicable  negotia- 
tion, or  to  defend  the  suit  at  law  or  in  equity. 

The  Meeting  for  Sufferings  also  took  up  the  sub- 
ject, and  with  a  view  to  an  amicable  settlement  sent 
a  deputation  with  a  letter  addressed  "To  the  Meeting 
for  Sufferings  now  sitting  on  Henry  Street,"  —  that 
being  the  place  of  meeting  of  those  called  Orthodox. 
But  the  meeting  thus  addressed  declined  to  receive 
the  communication. 

The  Chancery  bill  filed  by  the  Orthodox  party  in 
New  York  was  similar  to  that  filed  in  New  Jersey 
It  contained  the  same  confession  of  faith,  and  reiter- 
ated their  oft-repeated  charges  against  Elias  Hicks 
and  those  they  called  his  followers. 

In  the  answer  to  this  bill,  filed  by  Friends  as  defend- 
ants, they  deny  the  charges  made  by  the  Orthodox,  and 


THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION.  339 

affirm  that  their  belief  and  that  of  the  Yearly  Meeting 
to  which  they  belong  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  early 
Friends,  which  they  state  as  follows:  "The  said  So- 
ciety of  Friends,  as  appears  from  historical  records, 
and  the  writings  of  early  Friends,  have  always  be- 
lieved in  the  existence  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  that  these  three  are  one.  That  there 
is  one  holy,  just,  merciful,  almighty  and  eternal  God, 
who  is  the  Father  of  all  things ;  that  appeared  to  the 
holy  patriarchs  and  prophets  of  old,  at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners  ;  and  in  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  everlasting  Wisdom,  divine  Power,  true  Light, 
only  Saviour  and  Preserver  of  all,  the  same  One,  holy, 
just,  merciful,  almighty  and  eternal  God,  who,  in  the 
fulness  of  time  took,  and  was  manifest  in  the  flesh; 
at  which  time  he  preached  (and  his  disciples  after 
him)  the  everlasting  gospel  of  repentance  and  promise 
of  remission  of  sins  and  eternal  life  to  all  that  heard 
and  obeyed ;  who  said,  he  that  is  with  you  (in  the 
flesh)  shall  be  in  you  (by  the  Spirit),  and  though  he 
left  them  (as  to  the  flesh),  yet  not  comfortless,  for  he 
would  come  to  them  again  (in  the  Spirit),  for  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  is  that  Spirit,  a  manifestation  whereof  is 
given  to  every  one  to  profit  writhal.  In  which  Holy 
Spirit  they  believe,  as  the  same  almighty  and  eternal 
God."1 

"  In  relation  to  the  outward  manifestation  of  Jesus 
Christ,  they  have  always  believed  in  the  scripture  tes- 
timony of  his  miraculous  conception,  birth,  life,  mira- 
cles, sufferings,  death,  resurrection  and  ascension  :  an  1 
they  further  believe,  that  '  he  is  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins 
of  the  whole  world.'     Neither  is  there  salvation  in 

1  Perm's  Innocency  with  her  Open  Face, 


340  THE    PKOPERTY   QUESTION. 

any  other:  for  there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven 
given  among  men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved." 

"They  also  believe  in  the  inspiration  and  divine 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  that  they  are 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness;  that  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  with  all  good 
works." 

This  statement  of  their  belief  was  also  inserted  in 
another  bill  they  filed  in  chancery  the  following  year, 
in  the  same  suit,  and  an  addition  was  then  made  of 
some  paragraphs  from  Bevan's  Summary  of  the  Doc- 
trines of  Friends,  and  "W.  Penn's  Christian  Quaker.1 

In  the  First  month,  1835,  the  chancellor  gave  his 
decision.  After  reviewing  the  grounds  of  the  appli- 
cation for  an  injunction,  made  by  the  Orthodox  party, 
he  concludes  in  these  words  :  "  There  being  scarcely 
a  colour  or  pretence  for  this  application,  on  any  of 
these  grounds,  I  must  refuse  it  with  costs."  One  of 
the  grounds  alluded  to,  was  the  charge  brought  by 
the  Orthodox  party,  that  the  defendants  had  departed 
from  the  doctrines  of  Friends.  In  relation  to  this,  the 
chancellor  remarks :  "  Their  creeds,  though  somewhat 
differently  expressed,  are  substantially  and  virtually 
the  same,  and  on  this  subject,  whatever  dissensions 
may  have  been  produced  by  a  difference  of  opinion 
heretofore,  there  would  really  appear  to  be  no  room 
at  this  day  for  disputation  or  controversy." 

It  appears  that  the  Friends  who  defended  this  suit 
acted  judiciously  in  giving  an  exposition  of  their 
faith,  which,  though  brief,  is  explicit. 

A  statement  has  been  made  in  some  publications 

1  See  Extract  from  Bevan's   Summary,  in  Chapter  VI.  of  this 
treatise. 


THE   PROPERTY    QUESTION.  341 

of  the  Orthodox  party,  that  two  suits  were  brought 
against  them  in  the  State  of  New  York,  soon  after  the 
separation,  for  property  in  their  possession,  belonging 
to  the  Society  of  Friends.  In  explanation  of  this 
matter  the  following  facts  are  stated  in  a  communica- 
tion signed  by  Saml.  Willets,  on  behalf  of  a  commit- 
tee of  New  York  Monthly  Meeting.  At  the  time  of 
the  separation,  the  Nine-Partners'  Boarding-school 
and  Farm  were  under  the  care  of  a  committee,  nearly 
all  of  whom  were  Friends,  (belonging  to  the  larger 
body,)  but  they  had  placed  a  superintendent  in  charge, 
who  took  sides  with  the  Orthodox  party,  and  having 
barred  the  doors  and  windows,  he  refused  admission 
to  the  committee  that  employed  him.  The  trustee 
who  held  the  title  to  the  real  estate,  and  a  few  indi- 
viduals of  the  school  committee,  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  rest  of  the  committee,  proceeded  so  far  as 
to  have  a  writ  of  ejectment  served  on  the  superinten- 
dent; but  no  further  proceedings  were  had  in  the 
case,  for  when  it  became  known  to  the  general  com- 
mittee, they  promptly  had  the  suit  withdrawn. 

The  school  property,  together  with  a  fund  of  $10,000, 
belonging  to  the  institution,  remained  in  possession 
of  the  Orthodox  party.  There  was,  however,  another 
piece  of  land  detached  from  the  school  property,  but 
belonging  to  the  institution,  that  the  committee 
retained  in  their  possession  and  leased  to  a  tenant. 

The  other  suit  alluded  to,  was  for  $500  belonging 
to  the  Purchase  school-fund.  The  treasurer  had 
loaned  it  under  such  circumstances  that  he  felt  him- 
self accountable  for  it,  and  brought  the  suit  on  his 
own  responsibility  without  consulting  the  Meeting. 
He  obtained  a  verdict  in  his  favor,  but  through  the 

aid  of  eminent  counsel  employed  by  the  Orthodox 
29*  IV  — 2  s 


342      AMICABLE    SETTLEMENT    IN    NEW    YORK. 

party,  the  cause  was  removed  for  a  hearing  in  chan- 
cery. 

The  decision  of  the  chancellor  confirmed  the  ver- 
dict first  obtained,  with  additional  costs. 

The  burying-ground  belonging  to  New  York 
Monthly  Meeting  was  used  in  common  by  both  par- 
ties. The  larger  body  retained  the  title  in  their  hands, 
but  immediately  after  the  separation,  their  committee 
instructed  the  sexton  to  pay  the  same  respect  to  the 
orders  of  the  Orthodox  committee  as  to  their  own, 
for  the  interment  of  the  dead ;  and  that  party  were 
informed  that  if  they  preferred  to  employ  a  sexton  of 
their  own,  no  objection  would  be  made.1 

It  is  highly  gratifying  to  record  the  fact  that  an 
amicable  settlement  of  the  property  question  has  been 
made  between  the  two  sections  claiming  to  be  the 
Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends  of  New  York  city.  In 
the  5th  month,  1851,  a  committee  appointed  by  the 
Monthly  Meeting  of  Friends  in  that  city  reported 
that  they  had  conveyed  "to  their  brethren'  called 
Orthodox  Friends,  a  portion  of  the  land  lately  pur- 
chased in  the  city  of  Brooklyn  for  a  burying-ground, 
north  of  Twelfth  Street;  also  seven  lots  of  land  on 
Christy  Street,  and  three  lots  on  Houston  Street,  in 
the  city  of  New  York.  At  the  same  time  they  re- 
ceived from  the  Orthodox  Friends  deeds  releasing  to 
them  all  right  or  claim  to  any  portion  of  the  property 
on  Rose,  and  William,  and  Hester  Streets :  these  being 
the  lots  on  which  were  situated  two  meeting-houses 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  that  Friends  had  occupied 
after  the  Separation.     In  making  this  arrangement, 

1  Bill  in  Chancery,  New  York,  5th  mo.,  1834,  by  John  Corlies, 
Ba.  Corse,  S.  Willets,  and  others. 


THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION.  343 

Friends  believed  they  had  conveyed  to  their  Ortho- 
dox brethren  their  full  proportion  of  the  property, 
and  they  placed  the  offer  they  had  made  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  a  "voluntary  peace-offering  for 
the  purpose  of  restoring  and  promoting  good  fellow- 
ship and  kind  feelings  amongst  brethren."  This 
happy  result  has,  in  a  good  measure,  been  realized, 
not  only  in  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn, 
but  wherever  a  similar  course  has  been  pursued. 

Arrangements  are  now  in  progress  to  make  an 
equitable  division  of  the  property  that  belonged  to 
Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting  at  the  time  of  the  Separa- 
tion. The  number  of  those  called  Orthodox  Friends 
being  a  small  proportion  of  the  whole,  they  withdrew 
at  that  time,  and  left  the  larger  body  in  possession 
of  the  meeting-houses,  except  that  at  Hopewell  in 
Frederick  County,  Va.,  which  has  been  occupied 
jointly  by  both.  The  burial-grounds  throughout  the 
limits  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  have  been  used  in 
common  by  both  sections  without  contention  or 
hindrance  from  either. 

The  larger  body,  which  holds  its  Yearly  Meeting 
in  Lombard  Street  meeting-house,  Baltimore,  has 
made  overtures  to  the  Orthodox  Friends  for  an  ami- 
cable settlement  of  the  property  question,  as  appears 
by  the  following  extracts  from  its  minutes,  viz. : 

"  The  Clerks  were  directed  to  insert  in  our  Extracts,  the  follow- 
ing Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  to  that 
Body,  respecting  the  division  of  Property  with  our  Orthodox 
Brethren,  viz.: 

To  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings : 

The  Committee  appointed  at  our  last  Meeting,  upon  the  subject 
of  the  division  of  Property  with  the  other  branch  of  Society,  Re- 
port that  on  the  20th  of  the  1st  month  last,  they  addressed  to  our 


344  THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION. 

Orthodox  Friends,  a  Communication,  of  which  the  following  is  a 
copy,  viz. : 

To  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  which  represents  the  Yearly 
Meeting  of  Friends  that  meets  at  Courtland  Street,  Baltimore. 

Dear  Friends, — We  have  been  appointed  a  Committee  by 
our  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  to  endeavor  to  carry  into  effect  the 
object  embraced  in  the  following  minute,  which  was  adopted  by 
our  late  Yearly  Meeting,  viz. : 

'  The  Meeting  for  Sufferings  is  directed  to  open  communica- 
tion with  the  other  part  of  Society,  commonly  called  our  Orthodox 
Friends,  for  an  equitable  division  of  all  the  property  we  now  hold, 
which  was  formerly  jointly  held  by  them  and  us,  according  to  the 
number  of  members  of  the  two  branches  at  the  time  of  the  sepa- 
ration ;  and,  if  amicable  arrangements  to  that  end  can  be  effected, 
to  pay  them  the  amount  that  may  be  agreed  upon,  as  their  just 
share  of  all  the  property  held  by  us.' 

We  think  it  proper  to  state,  that  it  has  been  the  desire  of  some 
of  us,  for  many  years  past,  that  a  course  of  this  kind  should  be 
pursued,  and  efforts  to  that  end  have  been  heretofore  made ;  but 
the  body  of  our  Society  was  not  then  prepared  to  adopt  the  meas- 
ure. It  therefore  seemed  right,  in  order  to  move  in  that  har- 
mony which  is  so  beautiful  and  healthful  in  a  religious  organiza- 
tion, to  wait,  as  for  the  hindmost  of  the  Flock,  remembering  the 
sacred  injunction,  '  He  that  believeth,  shall  not  make  haste/ 
and  remain  alive  under  the  concern,  till  the  opposition  should  be 
removed. 

We  are  now  favored  to  be  able  to  say,  that  this  desired  period 
has  arrived.  The  preceding  minute  was  adopted  by  our  late 
Yearly  Meeting,  with  entire  unanimity.  Not  one  voice  was  op- 
posed thereto. 

Now,  dear  Friends,  it  is  our  ardent  desire,  that  the  proposition 
of  our  Yearly  Meeting,  thus  made,  may  be  entertained  by  you,  in 
the  same  kind  and  conciliatory  spirit  in  which  it  is  tendered ; 
and  of  this,  we  have  no  reason  whatever  to  doubt.  And  moreover, 
we  hope  and  trust,  that  the  reciprocal  exercise  of  kind  and  good 
feeling,  in  the  amicable  adjustment  of  this  subject,  may  be  the 
means  of  bringing  us  closer  and  closer  to  each  other,  in  kindness 
and  charity,  by  bringing  us  nearer  and  nearer  to  God,  in  the 
bonds  of  His  love. 

The  present  communication  is  made  in  entire  frankness,  and 


THE    PROPERTY    QUESTION.  345 

with  strict  integrity  of  purpose,  and,  if  we  know  our  own  hearts, 

in  true  brotherly  and  Christian  feeling,  in  which  we  can  subscribe 

ourselves  your  sincere  Friends, 

Benjn.  Hallowell, 

Samuel  Townsend, 

Samuel  M.  Janney, 

David  G.  McCoy, 

Benjn.  P.  Moore, 

Joseph  Matthews, 

Rich ar«d  H.  Townsend,  and 

Gerard  H.  Reese. 

Baltimore,  1st  Month  20th,  1865. 

On  behalf  of  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings  which  represents 
Baltimore  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  that  meets  at  Lombard 
Street. 

To  which  communication  we  received  the  following  reply,  viz. : 

To  Benjamin  Hallowell  and  others,  Committee  on  behalf  of  the 
Meeting  for  Sufferings  which  represents  the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Friends  that  meets  at  Lombard  Street. 

Dear  Friends, —  We  have  considered  the  communication 
addressed  to  our  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  by  you,  as  a  Committee 
of  your  Meeting. 

There  was  not  time  to  call  our  Meeting  together,  but  as  mem- 
bers of  it,  we  frankly  state  our  views,  which  we  believe  to  be 
those  of  our  other  members. 

The  proposition  embraced  in  the  minute  of  your  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, is  acceptable  to  us,  and  we  are  prepared,  with  the  consent  of 
our  meeting,  to  carry  it  out  in  the  same  Christian  spirit  in  which 
we  believe  it  has  been  proposed. 

We  cordially  reciprocate  the  kind  and  brotherly  feelings  which 
you  have  expressed,  and  remain  your  friends. 

R.  M.  Janney, 
Francis  T.  King, 
James  Carey, 
James  Carey  Thomas, 
Jesse  Tyson, 
Miles  White, 

Thos.  R.  Matthews. 
Baltimore,  1st  Month  20th,  1865. 

Four  members  of  our  Committee,  by  appointment,  subsequently 
had   a   very   satisfactory  personal  interview  with  four  of  these 

2S2 


346 


THE    PROPEETY    QUESTION. 


Friends,  during  which  they  expressed  a  willingness  to  unite  with 
us  in  an  application  to  the  Maryland  Legislature  for  power  to  sell 
and  convey  the  Fair  Hill  Boarding  School  Property,  and  to  aid 
in  selling  the  Pasture  Lot,  and  in  the  valuation  of  the  Lombard 
Street  Property.  Indeed,  a  disposition  was  gratifyingly  mani- 
fested to  do  their  full  part  to  carry  out  the  arrangement  proposed 
by  our  Yearly  Meeting. 

From  the  length  of  time  that  has  since  elapsed,  the  Committee 
believe  it  to  be  impracticable  to  ascertain,  with  entire  precision, 
the  number  of  members  of  the  two  branches  at  the  time  of  the 
separation;  but  our  Orthodox  Friends,  in  our  interview  with 
them,  expressed  their  belief,  that  the  relation  was  about  one  to 
four,  which  would  give  one-fifth,  or  twenty  per  cent,  for  their 
share,  and  that  they  were  willing  to  settle  upon  this  basis ;  and 
although,  from  the  best  estimates  we  have  been  able  to  gain,  this 
is  a  large  proportion,  yet  the  Committee  have  thought  it  best,  for 
the  sake  of  that  precious  harmony  that  happily  exists  between 
the  Representatives  of  the  two  branches,  who  have  had  inter- 
course with  each  other  upon  the  subject,  and  which  harmony  we 
desire  may  increase  and  extend,  to  recommend  to  the  Meeting  for 
Sufferings,  that  a  settlement  be  authorized  with  them  in  this 
proportion. 

Signed  on  behalf  of  the  Committee, 

Benj'n.  P.  Moore, 

„  ,  .  David  G.  McCoy. 

Baltimore,  Zd  Month  llth,  1865. 

This  Report,  upon  being  read  and  considered,  was  approved 
and  adopted  by  the  Meeting  for  Sufferings,  and  the  Committee 
was  continued,  and  authorized  and  directed  to  divide  the  property 
with  our  Orthodox  Friends,  upon  the  terms  contained  in  the  Re- 
port; that  is,  to  pay  them  one-fifth  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale 
of  the  Fair  Hill  Boarding  School  Property,  one-fifth  of  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  sale  of  the  Pasture  Lot,  and  one-fifth  of  one-half 
the  valuation  that  may  be  agreed  upon  of  the  Lombard  Street 
Meeting  House  Property,  these  three  pieces  of  property  being  all 
that  is  embraced  in  the  minute  of  our  Yearly  Meeting,  under 
which  we  are  acting." 

This  arrangement,  it  will  be  observed,  relates  only 
to  the  property  held  by  the  Yearly  Meeting,  which 


CONCLUSION.  347 

includes  one-half  of  the  Lombard  Street  meeting- 
house, the  other  half  belongs  to  the  Monthly  Meet- 
ing of  Baltimore.  The  property  belonging  to  the 
several  Monthly  meetings  remains  mostly  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  larger  body,  and  the  burial-grounds  are 
used  in  common  by  both. 

The  cordial  feelings  manifested  in  the  foregoing 
correspondence  will  probably  lead  to  an  amicable 
settlement  of  the  property  question  in  the  several 
Monthly  meetings,  and  must  have  a  favorable  influ- 
ence in  promoting  mutual  kindness  between  parties, 
who,  in  so  many  points  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  are 
in  agreement. 

In  closing  the  history  of  the  Separation  of  Friends 
in  America,  the  mournful  consideration  presents 
itself,  that  nearly  all  the  prominent  actors  engaged  in 
it  have  passed  away  from  this  stage  of  existence. 
May  we  not  hope  that  in  the  clearer  atmosphere  of 
the  spiritual  world,  those  who  differed  here,  will  no 
longer  "  see  as  through  a  glass  darkly,"  but,  coming 
face  to  face,  will  discover  in  each  other  those  pure 
principles  and  heavenly  affections  which  are  the  fruits 
of  the  Spirit,  uniting  every  member  of  the  Church  to 
its  glorious  Head,  Christ  Jesus. 

It  is  not  in  entire  uniformity  of  religious  opinions 
that  the  harmony  and  prosperity  of  the  Church  must 
be  sought,  for  the  indwelling  and  government  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  can  alone  enable  his  dedicated  fol- 
lowers "to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond 
of  peace." 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0035522364 


92    . 


*<n 


